[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR-
TATION'S REGULATORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENDA
=======================================================================
(118-68)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 24, 2024
__________
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
58-690 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Mark DeSaulnier, California Brian J. Mast, Florida
Salud O. Carbajal, California Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
Greg Stanton, Arizona, Puerto Rico
Vice Ranking Member Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Colin Z. Allred, Texas Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Sharice Davids, Kansas Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey,
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Vice Chairman
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts Tracey Mann, Kansas
Marilyn Strickland, Washington Burgess Owens, Utah
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana Rudy Yakym III, Indiana
Patrick Ryan, New York Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon
Mary Sattler Peltola, Alaska Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey
Robert Menendez, New Jersey Anthony D'Esposito, New York
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon Eric Burlison, Missouri
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
Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania Mike Collins, Georgia
Mike Ezell, Mississippi
John S. Duarte, California
Aaron Bean, Florida
Celeste Maloy, Utah
Kevin Kiley, California
Vince Fong, California
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
Kevin Kiley, California
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................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, opening statement........................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
WITNESSES
Tim Duit, President, Duit Construction Company, Inc.; on behalf
of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association
(ARTBA), oral statement........................................ 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Philip K. Bell, CAE, President, Steel Manufacturers Association
(SMA), oral statement.......................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 18
William ``Lewie'' Pugh, Executive Vice President, Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), oral statement........ 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Beth Osborne, Director, Transportation for America (T4America),
oral statement................................................. 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford:
Letter of July 23, 2024, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, from Alliance for
American Manufacturing et al............................... 71
Letter of August 6, 2024, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, from Jim Tymon,
Executive Director, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials............................... 73
Letter of July 24, 2024, 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............... 75
Statement of the National Association of Small Trucking
Companies.................................................. 77
Letter of August 6, 2024, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, from NATSO,
Representing America's Travel Plazas and Truckstops, and
SIGMA: America's Leading Fuel Marketers.................... 79
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton:
Letter of July 23, 2024, 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........... 82
Letter of July 18, 2024, 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 Institute for Safer Trucking and Road Safe
America.................................................... 88
APPENDIX
Question from Hon. Dina Titus to Tim Duit, President, Duit
Construction Company, Inc.; on behalf of the American Road &
Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA).................... 91
Questions from Hon. Steve Cohen to William ``Lewie'' Pugh,
Executive Vice President, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA)............................................ 92
Questions to Beth Osborne, Director, Transportation for America
(T4America), from:
Hon. Steve Cohen............................................. 93
Hon. Colin Z. Allred......................................... 94
Hon. Dina Titus.............................................. 95
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
July 19, 2024
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Examining the
Department of Transportation's Regulatory and Administrative
Agenda''
_______________________________________________________________________
I. PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on Wednesday,
July 24, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House
Office Building to receive testimony at a hearing entitled,
``Examining the Department of Transportation's Regulatory and
Administrative Agenda.'' The hearing will provide Members the
opportunity to hear from stakeholders on select regulatory and
administrative actions taken by Modal Administrations under the
Subcommittee's jurisdiction. At the hearing, Members will
receive testimony from the American Road & Transportation
Builders Association (ARTBA), the Steel Manufacturers
Association (SMA), the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA), and Transportation for America (T4A).
II. BACKGROUND
In 1946, Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) (P.L. 79-404), which defines a rule as ``the whole or
part of an agency statement of general or particular
applicability and future effect designated to implement,
interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the
organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency
. . . .'' \1\ The APA laid out general terms and processes for
Federal agency rulemakings.\2\ Generally, Congress passes
legislation to provide statutory authority to direct Federal
agencies to issue rulemakings.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551.
\2\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553.
\3\ Maeve P. Carey, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (IF10003), An Overview of
Federal Regulations and the Rulemaking Process, (Mar. 19, 2021),
available at https://www.crs.gov/Reports/IF10003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agencies may issue different types of rules. ``Legislative
Rules'' seek to carry out statutes as passed by Congress.\4\
``Non-legislative Rules'' may include ``interpretive rules and
general statements of policy.'' \5\ For the last several
decades, following the United States Supreme Court's decision
in Chevron U.S.A, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., Federal agencies generally received deference to
interpret laws passed by Congress and to issue regulations.\6\
In June 2024, the United States Supreme Court overruled the
Chevron decision, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Rulemaking Process, (last updated June
7, 2022), available at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/
rulemaking-process#whatisrule.
\5\ Todd Garvey, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R41546), A Brief Overview of
Rulemaking and Judicial Review, (Mar. 27, 2017), available at https://
www.crs.gov/Reports/R41546.
\6\ Benjamin M. Barczewski, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R44954), Chevron
Deference: A Primer, (May 18, 2023), available at https://www.crs.gov/
Reports/R44954.
\7\ Benjamin M. Barczewski, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (LSB11189), Supreme
Court Overrules Chevron Framework, (June 28, 2024), available at
https://www.crs.gov/Reports/LSB11189.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced the release
of the Biden Administration's Spring 2024 Unified Agenda of
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions on July 5, 2024.\8\
Published twice a year, the agenda details near- and long-term
rulemaking efforts being pursued across all Federal agencies,
including at the Department of Transportation (DOT).\9\ While
there are 222 total actions listed under DOT, within the
Subcommittee's jurisdiction, the agenda includes, but is not
limited to, 73 actions: 11 proposed rulemakings, and three
final rules for the Office of the Secretary (OST); 16 proposed
rulemakings and five final rules for the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA); two pre-rules, 16 proposed rulemakings,
and six final rules for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA); six proposed rules and three final
rules for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA); and three
proposed rules and two final rules for the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).\10\ Following
publication of the Unified Agenda, DOT typically publishes a
Significant Rulemaking Report, which provides additional
information regarding pending rulemakings.\11\ The most recent
report was published in February 2024.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Sam Berger, The 2024 Spring Regulatory Agenda, The White House,
(July 5, 2024), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-
room/2024/07/05/the-2024-spring-regulatory-agenda/ [hereinafter 2024
Spring Regulatory Agenda].
\9\ U.S. General Services Admin., Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Spring 2024 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions, (last accessed July 10, 2024), available at
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain.
\10\ 2024 Spring Regulatory Agenda, supra note 8.
\11\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Report on DOT Significant Rulemakings,
(Jan. 26, 2024), available at https://www.transportation.gov/
regulations/report-on-significant-rulemakings.
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIRA also maintains a dashboard of current regulatory
actions under review by OMB.\13\ The dashboard provides a
summary of information regarding proposed regulatory actions.
The dashboard currently lists 139 total pending actions. DOT
has seven proposed actions pending review by OMB, three of
which are within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction: FHWA's
Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning proposed
rule; FHWA's Notice of Request for Information (RFI) on Medium
and Heavy-Duty Electric Charging Technologies and
Infrastructure Needs; and FMCSA's Motor Carrier Operation of
Automated Driving System (ADS)-Equipped Commercial Motor
Vehicles proposed rule.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. General Services Administration, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, EO Dashboard,
(last accessed July 9, 2024), available at https://www.reginfo.gov/
public/jsp/EO/eoDashboard.myjsp.
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. ANALYSIS OF SELECT ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
GREENHOUSE GAS PERFORMANCE MEASURE
On December 7, 2023, FHWA published a final rule to require
states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (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.\15\ Congress included provisions to address
climate change and transportation resiliency in the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (P.L. 117-
58).\16\ Although a rule requiring a new highway-related GHG
performance measure was included in the House-passed H.R. 3684,
the INVEST in America Act, it was considered and disposed of
during IIJA negotiations.\17\ The Administration cites section
150 of title 23 U.S.C. as the authority for its rulemaking.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Nat'l Performance Mgmt. Measures; Assessing Performance of the
Nat'l Highway System, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure, 87 Fed. Reg.
42,401, (July 15, 2022).
\16\ DOT, Office of Public Affairs, Fact Sheet: Climate and
Resilience in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (July 5, 2022),
available at https://www.transportation.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-
law/fact-sheet-climate-and-resilience-bipartisan-infrastructure-law.
\17\ The INVEST in America Act of 2021, H.R. 3684, 117th Cong.
(July 1, 2021), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-
congress/house-bill/3684/text/eh.
\18\ National Performance Management Measures, 88 Fed. Reg. 85,364
(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several states have challenged FHWA's final rule on the
basis that it exceeds the Administration's statutory authority.
In December 2023, Texas filed a lawsuit challenging the rule,
and separately, Kentucky led a group of 21 states in filing a
lawsuit.\19\ Conversely, 15 states have written a letter to DOT
in support of the measure.\20\ On March 27, 2024, the Northern
District of Texas vacated FHWA's final rule, finding it
unauthorized.\21\ In a different case challenging the rule, the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky issued an opinion on April 1, 2024, finding the rule
exceeded FHWA's statutory authority and is arbitrary and
capricious.\22\ The Biden Administration has filed notices of
appeal in both cases.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Press Release, Ken Paxton Attorney General of Texas, Attorney
General Ken Paxton Sues Biden Administration for Overreaching
Transportation Emissions Rule, (Dec. 22, 2023), available at https://
www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-
sues-biden-administration-overreaching-transportation-emissions-rule;
see also Press Release, Attorney General Cameron Leads 21-State
Coalition Challenging Biden Administration's Unlawful Climate Mandate,
(Dec. 21, 2023), available at https://www.kentucky.gov/Pages/Activity-
stream.aspx?n=AttorneyGeneral&prId=1492.
\20\ Letter from Jennifer Toth, et al., to Administrator Shailen
Bhatt, Federal Highway Admin. (Jan. 4, 2024) (on file with Comm.).
\21\ State of Texas, et al. v. United States Department of
Transportation, et al., No. 5:23-cv-304-H (N. Dist. Tx. Mar. 27, 2024).
\22\ Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al. v. Federal Highway
Administration, et al., No. 5:23-cv-00162-BJB-LLK (W. Dist. Ky. Apr. 1,
2024).
\23\ Defendants' Notice of Appeal, Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al.
v. Federal Highway Administration, et al., No. 5:23-cv-00162-BJB-LLK
(W. Dist. Ky. May 31, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORK ZONES
On September 20, 2023, FHWA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) and request for comments to update
regulations pertaining to highway and street work zones.\24\
The NPRM seeks to make changes to many provisions addressed in
a 2004 FHWA final rule intended to bolster work zone
safety.\25\ Specifically, the NPRM proposes requiring states to
``identify the safety and mobility performance measures that
will be used to monitor and manage performance,'' as part of
their work zone safety and mobility policy.\26\ It would also
formally require states to ``develop and implement systematic
procedures to assess work zone impacts in project development,
and to manage safety and mobility during project
implementation.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Work Zone Safety and Mobility and Temporary Traffic Control
Devices, 88 Fed. Reg. 64,836 (Sept. 20, 2023), available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/09/20/2023-19701/work-zone-
safety-and-mobility-and-temporary-traffic-control-devices [hereinafter
Work Zone Safety].
\25\ Work Zone Safety and Mobility, 69 Fed. Reg. 54,562 (Sept. 9,
2004), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2004/09/
09/04-20340/work-zone-safety-and-mobility.
\26\ Work Zone Safety, supra note 24.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED DISCONTINUATION OF GENERAL WAIVER OF BUY AMERICA REQUIREMENTS
FOR MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS
In January 1983, following enactment of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 (P.L. 97-424),
FHWA issued a temporary public interest waiver of Buy America
requirements for ``manufactured products.'' \28\ FHWA issued a
Final Rule retaining this waiver for ``all manufactured
products other than steel and cement manufactured products''
\29\ which went into effect on December 27, 1983. While Buy
America requirements for FHWA Federal-aid highway programs have
been amended through legislation and litigation--for instance,
removing Buy America requirements for cement in 1984 and adding
iron materials and manufactured products to Buy America
preference requirements in 1991--the waiver for manufactured
products has remained.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 23 C.F.R. Sec. 635 (1983).
\29\ Id.
\30\ Pub. L. No. 98-229, 98 Stat. 55; see also DOT, FHWA, 23 CFR
Part 635 Final Rule General Material Requirements (July 21, 1993)
available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/contracts/
930721.cfm; see also Nat'l Academies Press, Buy America Requirements
for Federal Highway Projects 13 (2020), available at https://
nap.nationalacademies.org/read/25799/chapter/5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the Build America, Buy America Act (BABAA)
provisions in IIJA, Federal agencies are required to review
general applicability waivers every five years following the
issuance of such a waiver.\31\ On March 17, 2023, FHWA issued a
Notice and Request for Comment on its review of its General
Applicability Waiver of Buy America Requirements for
Manufactured Products, and received over 7,500 comments during
the 30-day window in which this request remained open.\32\ On
March 12, 2024, FHWA published an NPRM proposing to discontinue
its general waiver of Buy America requirements for manufactured
products.\33\ The NPRM initially set a 30-day public comment
period, during which it received more than 7,500 comments.\34\
FHWA subsequently extended the comment period to May 22, 2024,
during which time it received over an additional 1,900
comments.\35\ In total, more than 9,400 comments were received
regarding the NPRM.\36\ The Unified Agenda anticipates a Final
Rule by December 2024.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Build America, Buy America Act, Title IX, IIJA, Pub. L. No.
117-58, Sec. Sec. 70901-52.
\32\ Notice and Request for Comment on FHWA's Review of its General
Applicability Waiver of Buy America Requirements for Manufactured
Products, 88 Fed. Reg. 16,517 (Mar. 17, 2023), available at https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-03-17/pdf/2023-05498.pdf.
\33\ Buy America Requirements for Manufactured Products, 89 Fed.
Reg. 17,789, (Mar. 12, 2024), available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/03/12/2024-05182/buy-america-
requirements-for-manufactured-products.
\34\ Review of General Applicability Waiver of Buy America
Requirements for Manufactured Products, 88 Fed. Reg. 16,517 (Mar. 17,
2023) [hereinafter Waiver of Buy America Requirements].
\35\ General Applicability Waiver of Buy America Requirements for
Manufactured Products, 88 Fed. Reg. 24,651 (Apr. 21, 2023).
\36\ Waiver of Buy America Requirements, supra note 34.
\37\ U.S. General Services Admin., Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Application of Buy America to Manufactured
Products, (2024), available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202404&RIN=2125-AG13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUY CLEAN INITIATIVE
On December 8, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order
14057 to create a Buy Clean Task Force to prioritize low-carbon
construction material in Federal procurement and Federally-
funded projects.\38\ The Task Force is co-chaired by the
Federal Chief Sustainability Officer and the White House Office
of Domestic Climate Policy, and has representatives from the
Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security,
Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services,
Interior, State and Transportation; the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA); the General Services Administration
(GSA); the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the
Veterans Administration; the White House Domestic Climate
Policy Office, Council on Environmental Quality, Infrastructure
Implementation Team, Office on Clean Energy Innovation and
Implementation, and Office of Management and Budget.\39\
Collectively, the agencies account for 90 percent of all
Federally-funded and purchased construction materials.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ U.S. Office of the Federal Chief Sustainability Officer,
Federal Buy Clean Initiative, (last accessed July 9, 2024), available
at https://www.sustainability.gov/buyclean/.
\39\ Id.
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Task Force is charged with considering how the Federal
Government can promote low-embodied carbon emissions in
construction materials. Actions include identifying
construction materials (steel, cement and concrete, asphalt,
and flat glass) with the highest embodied carbon, increasing
the use of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), and
establishing pilot programs for clean construction
materials.\41\ On March 8, 2023, the Biden Administration
launched the Federal-State Buy Clean Partnership.\42\ The
partnership includes 12 states who work collaboratively with
the task force to prioritize low-carbon construction materials
in state-funded projects.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Id.
\42\ Id.
\43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation
Reduction Act (IRA) (P.L. 117-169) into law, which provided
$4.5 billion for GSA, DOT, and EPA to establish low-embodied
carbon construction materials programs.\44\ EPA issued their
Interim Determination on global warming potential (GWP) and
material requirements to DOT and GSA on December 22, 2022.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-169, 136
Stat. 1818 [hereinafter IRA of 2022].
\45\ Letter from Janet G. McCabe, Deputy Administrator, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, to Andrew Wishnia, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Climate Policy, United States DOT, and Kevin
Kampschroer, Chief Sustainability Officer and Director of the Office of
Federal High-Performance Green Buildings, United States General
Services Admin., (Dec. 22, 2022), available at https://www.epa.gov/
system/files/documents/2023-01/2022.12.22%20Interim
%20Determination%20on%20Low%20Carbon%20Materials%20under%20IRA%2060503%2
0and
%2060506_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 16, 2023, GSA launched a new pilot program with low-
embodied construction material requirements.\46\ The material
requirements were based on the EPA's Interim Determination and
developed with insight from domestic manufacturers and
environmental and labor groups.\47\ GSA and DOT, led by FHWA,
are continuing to engage industry on material requirements and
increase EPD harmonization and availability among
manufacturers.\48\ EPDs are third-party verified, but there are
data collection barriers that may impact accuracy of the
lifecycle assessment.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ IRA of 2022, supra note 44.
\47\ Press Release, U.S. General Services Admin., GSA Pilots Buy
Clean Inflation Reduction Act Requirements for Low Embodied Carbon
Construction Materials, (May 16, 2023), available at https://
www.gsa.gov/about-us/newsroom/news-releases/gsa-pilots-buy-clean-
inflation-reduction-act-requirements-for-low-embodied-carbon-
construction-materials-05162023.
\48\ Id.
\49\ John Milko and Ruth Cox, Improving Data for Federal Buy Clean
Efforts, Third Way, (June 22, 2023), available at https://
www.thirdway.org/memo/improving-data-for-federal-buy-clean-efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 12, 2024, FHWA launched the Low Carbon
Transportation Materials Program, which makes $1.2 billion
available to state departments of transportation and will make
$800 million available to non-state applicants in the coming
months.\50\ Applicants must adhere to the Interim Determination
material requirements set by the EPA.\51\ The goal of the
program is to increase the use of low-embodied carbon materials
in Title 23 projects, but also to make sure these materials are
appropriate and have adequate engineering performance for use
in Title 23 projects.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ U.S. Dep't Of Transp., FHWA, Low-Carbon Transportation
Materials Grants Program, (last updated June 18, 2024), available at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/lowcarbon/.
\51\ Id.
\52\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. ANALYSIS OF SELECT REGULATIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER
SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
The FMCSA establishes the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSR), which set minimum safety standards for
motor carriers and drivers.\53\ The Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) is the official publication containing the codification
of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal
Register.\54\ For FMCSA, under the CFRs, any interested person
may petition the FMCSA Administrator to establish, amend,
interpret, clarify, or withdraw a rule.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ United States Dep't of Transp., Fed. Motor Carrier Safety
Admin., The Motor Carrier Safety Planner, available at https://
csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/SafetyPlanner/Default.aspx.
\54\ United States National Archives and Records Administration,
Code of Federal Regulations, eCFR, (last accessed July 9, 2024),
available at https://www.ecfr.gov/.
\55\ 49 C.F.R. Sec. 389.31; see also 49 U.S.C. Sec. 113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPEED LIMITERS
On May 29, 2013, FMCSA initiated a rulemaking to require
the installation of speed-limiters on commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than
26,000 pounds.\56\ On September 9, 2016, a NPRM was jointly
published between FMCSA and NHTSA to equip CMVs over 26,000
pounds with a speed limiter, which, when combined with an
electronic stability control system on an engine, can govern
the maximum speed of a vehicle.\57\ The proposal considered
setting the maximum speed at 60, 65, and 68 miles per hour.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ United States Dep't of Transp., Report on DOT Significant
Rulemakings, December Internet Report (2016), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/regulations/significant-rulemaking-report-
archive.
\57\ Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations; Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation;
Speed Limiting Devices, 81 Fed. Reg. 61,942 (Sept. 7, 2016).
\58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 4, 2022, FMCSA announced its intention to further
proceed with the 2016 rulemaking through a supplemental notice
of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM), while also requesting more
information regarding the proposal.\59\ This SNPRM did not
include any proposed maximum speeds. The Spring 2024 Unified
Agenda anticipates a second NPRM to be published by June
2025.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operations; Speed
Limiting Devices, 87 Fed. Reg. 26,317 (May 4, 2022).
\60\ United States General Services Admin., Office Of Information
And Regulatory Affairs, Heavy Vehicle Speed Limiters, (2024), available
at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202404&RIN=2126-AB63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTOMATIC EMERGENCY BRAKES (AEBS)
IIJA requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe
a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) and performance
requirements for Automatic Emergency Brakes on CMVs heavier
than 26,000 pounds; to study equipping other CMVs with AEB
systems, and, if warranted, to develop performance standards;
and to review AEB systems used in CMVs to address any
identified deficiencies in the rulemaking.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 766.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2023, in response to this requirement, FMCSA and
NHTSA jointly proposed a NPRM to require AEB systems and
electronic stability control systems on new vehicles over
10,000 pounds, with a phased in timeline.\62\ Vehicles weighing
over 26,000 pounds (Class 7 and 8) would be required to meet
the new standards in three years.\63\ Vehicles weighing between
10,000 and 26,000 pounds (Class 3 to 6) would be required to
meet the new standards in four years.\64\ The comment period
for this rule ended on September 5, 2023, and a Final Rule is
anticipated by January 2025.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Heavy Vehicle Automatic Emergency Breaking, 88 Fed. Reg.
43,174 (Jul. 6, 2023).
\63\ Id.
\64\ Id.
\65\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. WITNESSES
LMr. Tim Duit, President, Duit Construction Co.,
Inc., on behalf of the American Road & Transportation Builders
Association (ARTBA)
LMr. Philip K. Bell, CAE, President, Steel
Manufacturers Association (SMA)
LMr. William ``Lewie'' Pugh, Executive Vice
President, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
(OOIDA)
LMs. Beth Osborne, Director, Transportation for
America (T4A)
EXAMINING THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S REGULATORY AND
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2024
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9 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 the 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 that to
[email protected].
I now recognize myself for the purposes of an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD OF
ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
Mr. Crawford. We are here today to examine the Department
of Transportation's regulatory and administrative agenda with
respect to the modal administrations under this subcommittee's
jurisdiction.
Since President Biden took office, we have heard frequently
from stakeholders spanning all regions and industries about the
burden of this administration's onerous regulatory agenda. An
analysis by the National Association of Manufacturers found
that across the board, Federal regulations cost the United
States economy more than $3 trillion. Yet, the administration
continues to march forward with crushing regulations, including
those that exceed its statutory authority.
The Federal Highway Administration continues to pursue its
final rule to force a greenhouse gas performance measure on
State departments of transportation and metropolitan planning
organizations, despite lacking the statutory authority to do
so. As I have said many times in this subcommittee, this policy
was considered and disposed of during negotiations of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Two federal courts issued opinions earlier this year
finding the rule exceeds the administration's statutory
authority. The United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas went so far as to vacate the rule. Concerns
have been repeatedly raised in this subcommittee about the
administration's unauthorized actions, including concerns that
this rule would put the thumb on the scale and potentially
influence project selection.
This rule would be particularly disastrous for rural areas
whose communities can't build a subway or bike lanes to cut
emissions. Yet, the administration is squandering valuable
resources to appeal both rulings.
Unfortunately, this isn't the only example we have seen of
the Department using executive action to advance the
progressive agenda it wishes had been included in IIJA. For
example, in December 2021, the Federal Highway Administration
released a policy memo, which, among other things, sought to
encourage States to prioritize nonmotorized modes and transit,
as well as update existing infrastructure over developing new
capacity projects. Many called on Federal Highways to rescind
that memo, specifically citing confusion as the memo ran
counter to IIJA, as well as concerns with the administration's
process and lack of public notice or comment period.
Thankfully, after several members of this committee raised
our significant concerns, Federal Highways did the right thing
and superseded its own memo. Going forward, we must retain the
ability of individual States to prioritize projects and address
their wide-ranging and unique needs.
Similarly troubling, we have heard concerns from businesses
that they are being hamstrung by ambiguity and lack of clarity
surrounding regulations.
The so-called Inflation Reduction Act provided $4.5 billion
for the Biden administration's Buy Clean initiative to allow
the General Services Administration and Federal Highways to
pilot low-embodied carbon programs. There has been confusion
about the material requirement differences between GSA and
Federal Highways, as well as a lack of transparency for the
Environmental Product Declaration--or EPD--collection. I remain
concerned that the Biden administration is pushing the market
without considering the actual life cycle of the materials in
construction projects.
Likewise, rules and regulations continue to be considered
that mandate certain technologies that may not be ready for
mass adoption, particularly as it relates to the trucking
sector. This can stifle the safe and efficient movement of
freight, have safety implications on other roadway users, and
may needlessly increase costs for consumers.
I appreciate our witnesses being here to discuss their
thoughts on the administration's regulatory agenda and look
forward to hearing their perspective.
[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
We are here today to examine the Department of Transportation's
regulatory and administrative agenda with respect to the modal
administrations under this subcommittee's jurisdiction.
Since President Biden took office, we've heard frequently from
stakeholders spanning all regions and industries about the burden of
this administration's onerous regulatory agenda. An analysis by the
National Association of Manufacturers found that across the board,
federal regulations cost the United States economy more than $3
trillion. Yet, the Administration continues to march forward with
crushing regulations, including those that exceed its statutory
authority.
The Federal Highway Administration continues to pursue its final
rule to force a greenhouse gas performance measure on state departments
of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations, despite
lacking the statutory authority to do so. As I have said many times in
this subcommittee, this policy was considered and disposed of during
negotiations of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Two federal courts issued opinions earlier this year finding the
rule exceeds the Administration's statutory authority. The United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas went so far as
to vacate the rule. Concerns have been repeatedly raised in this
subcommittee about the Administration's unauthorized actions, including
concerns that this rule would put the thumb on the scale and
potentially influence project selection.
This rule would be particularly disastrous for rural areas, whose
communities can't build a subway or bike lanes to cut emissions. Yet
the Administration is squandering valuable resources to appeal both
rulings.
Unfortunately, this isn't the only example we've seen of the
Department using executive action to advance the progressive agenda it
wishes had been included in IIJA. For example, in December 2021, the
Federal Highway Administration released a policy memo, which, among
other things, sought to encourage states to prioritize ``non-motorized
modes and transit,'' as well as update existing infrastructure over
developing new capacity projects. Many called on Federal Highways to
rescind that memo, specifically citing confusion as the memo ran
counter to IIJA, as well as concerns with the Administration's process
and lack of public notice or comment period.
Thankfully, after several Members of this committee raised our
significant concerns, Federal Highways did the right thing and
superseded its own memo. Going forward, we must retain the ability of
individual states to prioritize projects and address their wide-ranging
and unique needs.
Similarly troubling, we've heard concerns from businesses that
they're being hamstrung by ambiguity and a lack of clarity surrounding
regulations.
The so-called Inflation Reduction Act provided $4.5 billion for the
Biden Administration's Buy Clean Initiative to allow the General
Services Administration and Federal Highways to pilot low-embodied
carbon programs. There has been confusion about the material
requirement differences between GSA and Federal Highways, as well as a
lack of transparency for the Environmental Product Declaration, or EPD,
collection. I remain concerned that the Biden Administration is pushing
the market without considering the actual lifecycle of the materials in
construction projects.
Likewise, rules and regulations continue to be considered that
mandate certain technologies that may not be ready for mass adoption,
particularly as it relates to the trucking sector. This can stifle the
safe and efficient movement of freight, have safety implications on
other roadway users, and may needlessly increase costs for consumers.
I appreciate our witnesses being here to discuss their thoughts on
the Administration's regulatory agenda and look forward to hearing
their perspectives.
Mr. Crawford. I now recognize Ranking Member Holmes 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. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
subcommittee Chair Rick Crawford for holding this hearing on
transportation regulations.
The Department of Transportation is a crucial partner to
Congress in implementing the laws we write. The technical
expertise within the Department educates and informs Congress
in writing laws and fills in gaps through rules and guidance.
The Department and its agencies are tasked with issuing rules
to fight climate change, improve safety and air quality,
provide transparency and reduce fraud in federally funded
projects, and standardize the design of roads and bridges to
ensure their structural integrity.
In short, the Department's regulatory role is to ensure the
safe and efficient movement of people and goods across our
transportation systems.
This is no small task. Roughly every 5 years, Congress
gives the Department's agencies dozens of new rulemakings to
develop and directs them to update or modify existing ones.
Additionally, the agencies regularly accept petitions to
develop rules from the public.
This process is key to our democracy. It provides avenues
for every citizen, lawmaker, and stakeholder to provide input
into the rulemaking process.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act tasks the
Department with several rulemakings of interest. I would like
to speak today about those that will improve safety for all
users of our roadways.
The law required the Federal Highway Administration to
update the standards for street design, which is particularly
important as cities work to reduce pedestrian and bicyclist
fatalities. The agency has also issued guidance to States on
how to incorporate vulnerable road user safety assessments into
their safety programs.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is
required by the infrastructure law to develop regulations to
ensure cars are equipped with impaired driving prevention
technology to avoid fatalities from drunk driving.
The infrastructure law also directed the Department to
finalize several rules designed to improve safety in the
trucking industry. Fatalities involving large truck crashes
have risen 76 percent in the last 15 years. Since 2010, the
number of trucks involved in fatal crashes on roads with speed
limits of 75 miles per hour or more saw a 440-percent increase.
The Department has already issued a final rule requiring
truck trailers to have rear impact guards to provide protection
to passenger vehicle occupants.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is still
working to finalize a rule to require automatic emergency
brakes on heavy-duty vehicles. The administration's proposed
rule regarding these brakes is projected to prevent nearly
25,000 crashes and save 155 lives each year. I urge the
administration to move forward to finish this rulemaking.
Finally, I want to note the importance of Congress and the
administration in hearing from multiple points of view when it
comes to improving safety. Every road user cares about safety.
Traveling by car, truck, bike, or foot remains one of the
riskiest things we can do on a day-to-day basis. It is
imperative that we address safety issues from all perspectives
and listen to those impacted. No one person or stakeholder has
all the answers, but I believe collectively we can take a
stronger approach to reducing injuries and fatalities.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on improving
the safety of our transportation system, and I thank the
witnesses for their testimony today.
[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 Chairman Rick Crawford for
holding this hearing on transportation regulations.
The Department of Transportation is a crucial partner to Congress
in implementing the laws we write. The technical expertise within the
Department educates and informs Congress in writing laws and fills in
gaps through rules and guidance.
The Department and its agencies are tasked with issuing rules to
fight climate change, improve safety and air quality, provide
transparency and reduce fraud in federally funded projects and
standardize the design of roads and bridges to ensure their structural
integrity.
In short, the Department's regulatory role is to ensure the safe
and efficient movement of people and goods across our transportation
systems.
This is no small task. Roughly every five years, Congress gives the
Department's agencies dozens of new rulemakings to develop and directs
them to update or modify existing ones. Additionally, the agencies
regularly accept petitions to develop rules from the public.
This process is key to our democracy. It provides avenues for every
citizen, lawmaker and stakeholder to provide input into the rulemaking
process.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act tasked the Department
with several rulemakings of interest. I would like to speak today about
those that will improve safety for all users of our roadways.
The law required the Federal Highway Administration to update the
standards for street design, which is particularly important as cities
work to reduce pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities. The agency has also
issued guidance to states on how to incorporate vulnerable road user
safety assessments into their safety programs.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is required by
the infrastructure law to develop regulations to ensure cars are
equipped with impaired driving prevention technology to avoid
fatalities from drunk driving.
The infrastructure law also directed the Department to finalize
several rules designed to improve safety in the trucking industry.
Fatalities involving large truck crashes have risen 76 percent in the
last 15 years. Since 2010, the number of trucks involved in fatal
crashes on roads with speed limits of 75 miles per hour or more saw a
440 percent increase.
The Department has already issued a final rule requiring truck
trailers to have rear impact guards to provide protection to passenger
vehicle occupants.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is still working to
finalize a rule to require automatic emergency brakes on heavy duty
vehicles. The Administration's proposed rule regarding these brakes is
projected to prevent nearly twenty-five thousand crashes and save one
hundred fifty-five lives each year. I urge the Administration to move
forward to finish this rulemaking.
Finally, I want to note the importance of Congress and the
Administration in hearing from multiple points of view when it comes to
improving safety. Every road user cares about safety.
Traveling by car, truck, bike or foot remains one of the riskiest
things we do on a day-to-day basis. It is imperative that we address
safety issues from all perspectives and listen to those impacted. No
one person or stakeholder has all the answers, but I believe
collectively we can take a stronger approach to reducing injuries and
fatalities.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on improving the
safety of our transportation system and thank the witnesses for their
testimony.
Mr. Crawford. I now recognize ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING
MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair Crawford and
Ranking Member Norton, for holding this hearing today on the
Department of Transportation's regulatory agenda.
Members of Congress are motivated to serve on this
committee for lots of reasons. Whether your interest in
transportation includes reducing traffic fatalities, helping
U.S. businesses compete in the global economy, combating
pollution, creating jobs, or making transportation work for
more communities, regulations do play a role in meeting these
goals.
While Congress writes the laws, Federal agencies turn these
legislative proposals into the rules of the road that are to be
followed and enforced.
Federal agencies have professionals--engineers, planners,
and economists--who bring their expertise to bear to make our
transportation systems work seamlessly.
This DOT, under the leadership of Secretary Buttigieg, is
implementing policies to make our transportation systems
cleaner, greener, safer, and more accessible. As the
administration continues to implement the BIL, this committee
will continue our oversight to ensure the regulations are
consistent with the law and with congressional intent.
We continue to have a roadway safety crisis, with a total
of 42,795 people killed in traffic crashes on U.S. roadways in
2022. Nearly 6,000 of those people were killed in crashes
involving large trucks, including 85 people in Washington
State.
The BIL took steps towards ending these preventable
fatalities, including by requiring rear underride guards and
automatic emergency brakes for commercial motor vehicles.
Today, we will hear testimony from the Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association, whose members are frontline
workers with a vested interest in safety, and it is critical we
listen to the voices of those directly impacted by truck safety
standards.
It is equally important that we listen to those whose lives
have been devastated by the loss of a loved one in a traffic
crash.
I applaud the tireless work of the transportation safety
advocates who help hold Congress and the administration to
account as we work to make our roadways safer.
We continue to have a climate crisis, and transportation
emissions are increasing. Transportation is the largest emitter
of carbon pollution in the U.S., and 80 percent of those
emissions come from cars and light-duty trucks. The Biden
administration's greenhouse gas performance measure was a small
but important attempt to address climate change. We cannot
solve what we do not measure.
While this particular rule has been struck down, asking
States to track carbon emissions on their roadways and set
nonbinding goals to reduce emissions is not an unreasonable ask
as part of the system where States control hundreds of billions
of dollars and have the flexibility to spend them however they
see fit, including on highway expansions.
Ignoring the link between transportation and climate change
will not prevent roadways from being washed out during storms,
pavements from buckling under extreme heat, or tunnels from
flooding during a hurricane.
I look forward to the testimony from Transportation for
America on how we can chart a better path forward.
Clear, consistent rules save time, save money, and
certainly save lives. They underpin our ability to travel
freely, for businesses to ship their goods to market, and for
people with differing abilities to access the transportation
systems that they need to get around.
While we may differ on the details of individual rules, I
hope we can agree that consistent, reliable funding for
infrastructure and data-driven rules to guide the buildout and
the use of that infrastructure is key to safety and the
economy.
So, with that, I will yield back. And I want to thank the
witnesses for being here and look forward to our discussion.
[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 today on the Department of Transportation's regulatory
agenda.
Members of Congress are motivated to serve on this Committee for
lots of reasons.
Whether your interest in transportation includes reducing traffic
fatalities, helping U.S. businesses compete in the global economy,
combating pollution, creating jobs or making transportation work for
more communities, regulations play a role in meeting these goals.
While Congress writes the laws, federal agencies turn these
legislative proposals into rules of the road that can be followed and
enforced.
Federal agencies have professionals--engineers, planners and
economists--who bring their expertise to bear to make our
transportation systems work seamlessly.
This DOT, under the leadership of Secretary Buttigieg, is
implementing policies to make our transportation systems cleaner,
greener, safer and more accessible.
As the administration continues to implement the BIL, this
Committee will continue our oversight to ensure that regulations are
consistent with the law and with Congressional intent.
We continue to have a roadway safety crisis, with a total of 42,795
people killed in traffic crashes on U.S. roadways in 2022. Nearly 6,000
of those people were killed in crashes involving large trucks,
including 85 people from Washington State.
The BIL took steps towards ending these preventable fatalities,
including by requiring rear underride guards and automatic emergency
brakes for commercial motor vehicles.
Today we will hear testimony from the Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association, whose members are frontline workers with a vested
interest in safety. It is critical we listen to the voices of those
directly impacted by truck safety standards.
It is equally important that we listen to those whose lives have
been devastated by the loss of a loved one in a traffic crash.
I applaud the tireless work of the transportation safety advocates
who help hold Congress and the administration to account as we work to
make our roadways safer.
We continue to have a climate crisis, and transportation emissions
are increasing.
Transportation is the largest emitter of carbon pollution in the
U.S., and 80 percent of those emissions come from cars and light-duty
trucks.
The Biden administration's Greenhouse Gas Performance Measure was a
small but important attempt to address climate change.
We cannot solve what we do not measure. While this particular rule
has been vacated, asking states to track carbon emissions on their
roadways and set non-binding goals to reduce emissions is not an
unreasonable ask as part of a system where states control hundreds of
billions of dollars and have the flexibility to spend them however they
see fit--including on highway expansions.
Ignoring the link between transportation and climate change will
not prevent roadways from being washed out during storms, pavements
from buckling under extreme heat or tunnels from flooding during a
hurricane.
I look forward to the testimony from Transportation for America on
how we can chart a better path forward.
Clear, consistent rules save time, save money and certainly save
lives. They underpin our ability to travel freely, for businesses to
ship their goods to market and for people with differing abilities to
access the transportation systems they need to get around.
While we may differ on the details of individual rules, I hope we
can agree that consistent, reliable funding for infrastructure and
data-driven rules to guide the build out and use of that infrastructure
is key to safety and the economy.
Thank you to our witnesses, and I look forward to the discussion.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. I now would like to
welcome our witnesses and thank them for being here today.
Before we get started, I want to take a quick minute to
explain our lighting system. It seems pretty self-explanatory.
Three lights, much like a traffic light, in front of you. Green
means go, but unlike a stoplight, yellow does not mean slow
down and proceed with caution as you might expect. It actually
means hurry up because it is fixing to turn red.
When it turns red, you might hear one of these little
numbers [tapping gavel], which is a reminder to conclude your
remarks quickly. So, when it does turn red, like I said, you
might hear a little tap.
I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements
be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I also 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 that you limit your oral remarks to 5
minutes.
With that, Mr. Duit, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF TIM DUIT, PRESIDENT, DUIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
INC.; ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ROAD & TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS
ASSOCIATION (ARTBA); PHILIP K. BELL, CAE, PRESIDENT, STEEL
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (SMA); WILLIAM ``LEWIE'' PUGH,
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS
ASSOCIATION (OOIDA); AND BETH OSBORNE, DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION
FOR AMERICA (T4AMERICA)
TESTIMONY OF TIM DUIT, PRESIDENT, DUIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
INC.; ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ROAD & TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS
ASSOCIATION (ARTBA)
Mr. Duit. Good morning, Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member
Norton, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
me to appear in my role as chair of the American Road &
Transportation Builders Association.
ARTBA's public- and private-sector members design, build,
and maintain the Nation's transportation network. I am also
president of Duit Construction, based in Edmond, Oklahoma. We
are a family-owned, heavy highway concrete, asphalt, and bridge
construction company with around 700 employees.
Before I address the regulatory matters at the heart of
today's hearing, let me note that the increased investment
levels in the 2021 infrastructure law are supporting an overdue
modernization of America's transportation network. States have
initiated 75,000 improvements with at least 1 Federal-aid
highway and bridge project in nearly every U.S. county. In
Oklahoma, 1,600 projects are taking shape.
The infrastructure law is also helping with job creation.
Nationally, 43,000 new construction industry jobs have been
added since 2021. Another key part of the infrastructure story
is the Federal agencies implementing the maze of policy
changes. Regulatory proposals that are clear and well-defined
can achieve their intended purpose.
For example, when the Federal Highway Administration
recently proposed updates to its work zone regulations, we were
pleased to see greater emphasis on the need for positive
separation between workers and motorists. It will help improve
safety for everyone. In other instances, however, while the
road to regulation is paved with good intentions, the outcomes
can cause uncertainty in the lack of clarity for the companies
working on transportation projects.
My written testimony addresses numerous areas for
regulatory reform that are worthy of additional oversights by
this subcommittee. In the interest of time, I will address four
of them.
The first relates to what constitutes ``waters of the
United States.'' If a project includes a roadside ditch, is a
Clean Water Act permit required? This should be an easy answer,
but, unfortunately, it is not. The definition has bounced back
and forth like a ping-pong ball with different proposals from
the last three different Presidential administrations.
Years of litigation led to a definitive clarification by
the United States Supreme Court, but Federal agencies have not
yet fully complied. So, more than a decade of uncertainty,
confusion, and frustration continues for transportation
builders.
Second, ARTBA fully supports congressional intent to
strengthen domestic manufacturing. However, we continue to see
inconsistencies and uncertainties in the Buy American
implementation. The Federal Highway Administration has proposed
to roll back its Buy America waiver for manufactured products.
This would require contractors to dissect electronic,
mechanical, and other items incorporated into projects and
document the origin of thousands of small inexpensive
components. To prevent unnecessary cost increases and project
disruptions, ARTBA supports continuation of the existing
waiver.
Third, while we work to comply with other IIJA changes, we
are also contending with unexpected regulations that are not
part of the law, like a rule requiring a greenhouse gas
performance measure. This measure was debated and deliberately
left out of the bipartisan IIJA, yet the current administration
finalized their rule in December and now litigation is ongoing.
Fourth, the Fish and Wildlife Service is preparing to
tighten protections against accidental harming of migratory
birds. While contractors aim to safeguard wildlife on or near
project sites, a rule that imposes a rigid and unpredictable
requirement could result in work stoppages every time these
types of birds appear in the area.
In closing, let me say that historic levels of
infrastructure investment when accompanied by the harmonious
regulatory environment intended by Congress can result in
timely completion of transportation projects that move people
and products safely and efficiently. We look forward to our
continued collaboration with Congress to achieve this goal.
Thanks again for the opportunity to be here today. I am
happy to answer any questions.
[Mr. Duit's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Duit, President, Duit Construction Company,
Inc.; on behalf of the American Road & Transportation Builders
Association (ARTBA)
Subcommittee Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, and members
of the subcommittee, thank you for convening today's hearing.
I am Tim Duit, president of Duit Construction, a heavy highway
concrete and asphalt construction company with more than 700 team
members that is based in Edmond, Oklahoma. I also serve as the current
chair of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association
(ARTBA).
Established in 1902, ARTBA is the only national association
representing all aspects of the U.S. transportation design and
construction industry. Our 8,000 members, anchored by our 36 state
contractor chapter affiliates, design, build, and manage the nation's
transportation infrastructure.
Today's hearing offers an opportunity to examine the balance
between the work required to construct and maintain America's roads,
bridges, and public transportation systems and the regulatory
safeguards under which the transportation construction industry
operates.
These safeguards aim to protect workers and the traveling public,
provide a level-playing field for businesses to compete, and ensure
stewardship of the environment and national transportation system.
A robust regulatory framework and a strong national transportation
system are not mutually exclusive.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) provided a much-
needed boost in investment. to support modernization of the multi-modal
U.S. transportation network. My company has already experienced the
impacts of this investment, winning multiple bids for projects
supported by the infrastructure law. Oklahoma has seen more than 1,600
projects receive IIJA funding commitments, and Duit Construction has
ramped up hiring and equipment purchases to accommodate the increase in
activity for our company.
At the same time as the infrastructure law's investments are
supporting mobility and safety improvements, a maze of new and expanded
regulations that govern the use of these funds is being advanced. The
resulting uncertainty impacts how I hire, when my teams can begin
construction, and where to purchase materials and equipment needed on
jobsites.
As I noted at the outset, state and federal regulations have always
been part of public sector infrastructure endeavors. Our goal is to
ensure that the regulatory environment has the same objectives as
transportation investments--to help move people and products in the
safest and most efficient manner possible.
The Infrastructure Law So Far
A complex regulatory environment existed prior to the IIJA, and
it's important to underscore that any rulemakings underway since 2021
do not overshadow the significant impacts most states are seeing in
work performed thanks to the law's investment increases.
As the IIJA has crossed the mid-way point of its five-year
authorization, its market impacts are evident at all stages of the
highway and bridge construction pipeline, delivering safety
improvements, upgrades, and enhancements that improve the quality of
life for all Americans. There are very few government programs that
have such a widespread and lasting impact on our country.
The map below depicts the number of new federal-aid highway and
bridge project commitments in the law's first two years--totaling more
than 75,000 so far.
Additional indicators of the law's progress since October 1, 2021,
include:
States have advanced at least one federal-aid highway and
bridge project in nearly every county across the country;
The value of state and local government projects breaking
ground was up, year-to-year, 27 percent in 2022 and another 9 percent
in 2023;
The value of state and local government projects was
nearly $114 billion in 2023, compared to $75 billion in 2019;
Nearly 43,000 new construction industry jobs have been
added since 2021; and
The value of highway and bridge construction work is up
over 18 percent in the beginning of 2024, on top of record levels of
work in 2022 and 2023.
Projects supported by the infrastructure law include repair and
reconstruction work, new capacity, planning and design, right of way
purchases, and other eligible activities under the federal-aid highway
program, as depicted in the chart below.
The law also supports major projects with a regional impact, such
as the Anzalduas International Bridge project in Texas or upgrades to
the I-10 freight corridor in Mississippi, along with important
improvements at the local level, such as the reconstruction of Cedar
Falls Main Street in Iowa and safety improvements on South McGregor
Avenue in Mobile, Alabama.
Closer to home, Muskogee, Oklahoma, will see freight, safety, and
community improvements thanks to a $74 million replacement of the east
and westbound spans of the U.S. Highway 62 bridge over the Arkansas
River. The 60-year-old bridge was showing major signs of wear and tear,
and with the help of IIJA funding, the state is investing in the
economic future of the region. Given the strength of leading indicators
and stable funding, construction activity is expected to continue to
grow in the next three years as highway and bridge improvements
continue.
Transportation Construction and the Regulatory Environment
Federal regulations, when properly enacted, can foster market
growth and competition, spur innovation, and ensure that safety and
environmental stewardship run parallel with the cost-effective delivery
of transportation infrastructure projects. However, when these
regulations become overly burdensome, they have the potential to stifle
infrastructure investment and shift costs from construction to
compliance.
Government wide, 2024 has been one of the most-costly years for
federal regulations finalized to-date. And since the enactment of IIJA,
there have been at least 50 new regulations affecting the
transportation construction industry alone.
Compliance costs such as rule familiarization, new paperwork, and
recordkeeping requirements, as well as the need for increased staff and
equipment, are exacerbated when businesses do not know how to comply
with rules. As such, contractors competing to work on transportation
improvement projects will often ``price'' the risk of new regulatory
requirements--or uncertainty about them--into their bids, resulting in
needlessly higher project costs for taxpayers.
These rulemakings have generated new uncertainties for the industry
as they seek to properly comply, threatening to delay projects and
increase costs. A cycle of a proposed rule, finalization, and in some
cases, litigation, creates significant challenges for businesses large
and small.
The following represents a cross section of recent regulatory
activity in transportation construction that impacts how projects are
delivered:
Contracting
The transportation construction industry seeks to maximize safety,
cost-effectiveness, efficiency, and environmental stewardship in
building federal-aid projects. The federal regulatory regime should
not--and need not--compromise those objectives. Regrettably, several
recent regulatory changes or proposals threaten to undermine economic
benefits from the IIJA's record investments.
Here are current examples of regulations which, when improperly
interpreted and implemented, threaten to dilute the value of federal
investment.
Build America, Buy America
The ``Build America, Buy America Act'' (BABA), embedded in the
IIJA, remains a significant implementation challenge as we approach
three years since the law's enactment. ARTBA supports the clear
congressional intent to grow domestic manufacturing capacity in the
long-term. Our concern relates to the potential for project
disruptions, given unrealistic market expectations and the time
required for domestic manufacturing capacity to develop.
For more than 40 years, Buy America has required a domestic
manufacturing process for iron, steel and certain manufactured products
permanently incorporated into federal-aid highway and transit projects,
which ARTBA has supported. The IIJA expanded Buy America coverage to
five categories of construction materials (non-ferrous metals, plastic
and polymer-based products, glass, lumber, and drywall). The law also
codified responsibilities for the Made in America Office (MIAO), part
of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which the Biden
administration had created by executive order. The MIAO is charged with
coordinating domestic preference programs and reviewing related waivers
for the entirety of the federal government.
ARTBA continues to see shortcomings and misplaced priorities in
BABA's implementation. In February 2024, ARTBA joined three other
national associations in filing a petition for rulemaking with OMB. Our
coalition contends that MIAO has wrested numerous responsibilities for
BABA implementation from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and others with decades of
experience in applying Buy America to projects. In some cases, this has
resulted in uncertainties or inconsistencies in current Buy America
requirements across states. Additionally, the petition notes that the
BABA waiver process, in which MIAO now plays a critical role, has
proven to be inconsistent, opaque, and dysfunctional for several
agencies.
Also of great concern, FHWA has proposed rolling back its
longstanding waiver for manufactured products. This action would result
in significant administrative costs and delays, in part because
contractors will need to document the origin of small, inexpensive,
commercially available, off-the-shelf items that comprise various
manufactured products.
In a survey of contractors undertaken in response to FHWA's request
for information on this topic, two-thirds of respondents anticipated
the proposed rollback would require ``significant additional time and
cost to document and certify the components within manufactured
products.'' They also identified dozens of manufactured products--
including electrical, electronic, and mechanical items--that would be
difficult or impossible to procure at a reasonable cost--or at all--
with enough domestic content to comply with FHWA's proposed rule
change.
We urge this committee to engage with OMB, MIAO, FHWA and FTA, and
seek to minimize project cost increases and delays resulting from the
BABA provisions.
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program
In April 2024, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) released
rule changes for its longstanding Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
(DBE) program. Conducted over two years, the rulemaking addressed
almost 40 aspects of the DBE program, yielding approximately 400
comments to the docket.
ARTBA supported some of the rule changes and appreciated FHWA's
responsiveness to a number of our comments. However, since the May 9
effective date, the association has heard significant concerns from
members--including DBE firms--as to how various new requirements are
being interpreted at the state level.
This includes extensive data collection responsibilities, which
some state transportation agencies appear poised to impose on
contractors and subcontractors bidding on federal-aid projects. Some
DBE firms have commented that these types of administrative mandates
may drive them from the transportation construction market entirely.
ARTBA recommends that this committee deploy its oversight
responsibilities to review various aspects of DBE program
implementation under the revised rule.
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Davis-Bacon Act Regulations
Last summer, DOL announced significant changes to the Davis-Bacon
Act's regulations that govern the prevailing wage for federal
contracting. While DOL was responsive to and specifically referenced
ARTBA's comments, portions of the final rule remain problematic.
Specifically, DOL's revisions concerning truck drivers and materials
suppliers created significant confusion for transportation construction
contractors. Furthermore, DOL regional offices have not reported
consistently on the rules.
Litigation has stayed the most problematic rule changes for the
time being, but ARTBA notes that DOL's implementation guidance has not
been sufficiently detailed or timely (including updates needed since
recent court actions). Ensuring consistent application of the rule will
alleviate unnecessary confusion. Non-compliance with these regulations
can result in substantial penalties, including fines and potential
debarment from future federal contracts, underscoring the importance of
clear and uniform guidance for the industry.
We have also seen systemic challenges in Davis-Bacon compliance
unrelated to the recent rule changes. For about the past fifteen years,
job classifications and territories for calculating prevailing wage
rates in Oklahoma have grown steadily, adding administrative costs.
Congress or DOL should seek to streamline this process, which will
reduce project costs and lead to more economic benefits from federal
transportation investment.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA)
In a forthcoming proposed rule change, FWS is expected to further
tighten penalties for accidental harm to migratory birds. While well-
intentioned, this approach does not recognize that these species'
habitats can appear on transportation project sites (especially
bridges) virtually overnight as birds build new nests. Broadening
interpretation of the MBTA would likely require industry professionals
to utilize extraordinary, costly and time-consuming measures to avoid
accidental harm to, or takings of, any such birds, potentially
requiring work stoppages. Moreover, if unintended incidents occur
despite preventative steps, the contractor would be subject to an
economic penalty. While contractors make significant efforts to protect
wildlife on or near project sites, use of the MBTA in this way will
diminish the predictability of workflow and costs.
Procurement
Federal Highway Administration, Qualifications Based
Selection Rule
Contracts for architecture and engineering services that are
related to a construction project and utilize federal funding must
foster open competition under the 1972 Brooks Act. This is achieved
through a current FHWA procurement process known as ``qualifications-
based selection'' (QBS), which assesses engineering design services
based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for services being
procured, all while ensuring a fair and reasonable price.
FHWA proposed eliminating the requirement to use the QBS method for
projects awarded directly to a non-state agency (e.g., local, or
municipal agency). ARTBA strongly opposes this proposal, as it could
lead to suboptimal project outcomes by prioritizing cost over quality.
High-quality engineering and design services are crucial for ensuring
the safety, durability, and efficiency of transportation
infrastructure. ARTBA is also concerned FHWA's proposal would create an
uneven playing field with QBS applying to some recipients and not
others, without a substantive justification.
Project Delivery
ARTBA members have consistently demonstrated innovation and
environmental stewardship, with many achieving significant
sustainability successes through environmentally conscious project
delivery methods. However, agency overreach and policy ambiguity create
significant obstacles, and jeopardize the certainty required to advance
transportation improvement projects.
Federal Highway Administration, Greenhouse Gas Performance
Measure
FHWA finalized a December 2023 rule requiring state departments of
transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations to
establish greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets. While FHWA did not
mandate specific targets, it required that emissions decline over time,
as measured by tailpipe carbon dioxide data. This would apply to all
mainline highways and public roadways.
ARTBA is not opposed to the reduction of GHG emissions in
principle, but believes FHWA lacks the statutory authority,
environmental expertise, and enforcement ability to enact such
regulations. In fact, Congress deliberately contemplated and excluded
such provisions from the IIJA. Further, this rule could impinge on
state flexibility to select projects.
Twenty-two states challenged the rule in two federal district
courts, and ARTBA filed an amicus brief in support of the challenge.
Both courts ruled that FHWA does not have statutory authority, and the
agency is now appealing, thereby prolonging the regulatory uncertainty
under which ARTBA members operate.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Army Corps, Waters of
the United States
Determining what constitutes Waters of the United States (WOTUS)
under the Clean Water Act (CWA) is a perennial dilemma in Washington,
D.C., and on construction sites around the country, given the shifting
definitions proposed in various rulemakings over the last few years.
For transportation construction professionals, roadside ditches have
historically been exempted under WOTUS, but recent U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) action has created ambiguity.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. Environmental
Protection Agency clarified the scope of the CWA and sought to reduce
regulatory ambiguity by providing a clear standard. Despite the Court's
directives, EPA finalized a new rule that made only marginal
improvements, while perpetuating longstanding uncertainties in CWA
jurisdiction.
While the agency removed the term ``significant nexus'' as
instructed by the Court, EPA failed to provide a clear standard for
``relatively permanent'' water flow in the rule, leaving regulated
individuals to determine this on their own and bringing in further
compliance uncertainty. This resulting lack of clarity forces project
proponents to determine WOTUS on a case-by-case basis, leading to
delays and potential agency overreach.
Given that CWA violations carry criminal penalties, it is crucial
for all regulated parties to understand what constitutes a WOTUS. ARTBA
has requested implementation guidance from EPA to help achieve greater
clarity and urges this committee to press the agency to issue draft
implementation guidance for public comment.
Permitting and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Regulations
The IIJA introduced ``One Federal Decision'' (OFD) reforms,
exemplifying a bipartisan spirit for improving and expediting
environmental reviews. Currently, the approval process for new, major
federal-aid transportation projects averages five to seven years, with
some ARTBA members waiting as long as 14 years.
OFD aims to improve environmental reviews by enacting page limits,
setting a two-year goal, and allowing federal agencies to engage in
concurrent review. The IIJA made OFD a goal, and 2023's Fiscal
Responsibility Act strengthened OFD reforms into a requirement. To
date, ARTBA cannot point to any tangible applications of OFD. Failing
to implement these reforms can incur significant taxpayer costs, as
projects take longer to move to the construction phase.
Separately, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
earlier this year finalized phase two of its NEPA rulemaking. The rule
was responsive to ARTBA's comments by excluding prior greenhouse gas
emissions guidance, but unfortunately removed references to the
procedural nature of NEPA permitting, allows for indefinite extensions
and requires consideration of abstract, hard-to-measure factors. ARTBA
members have concerns that these ambiguities may lead to extended
project delays and increased spurious litigation risks from third
parties.
Efficient project delivery is vital to achieving the infrastructure
renewal goals of the IIJA, and all parties must work in concert to
achieve this, while protecting environmental safeguards.
Work Zone Safety
Safety for workers and the public is the top priority for ARTBA's
membership. ARTBA has a strong working relationship with the U.S.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and respects the
core purpose of the agency to ensure the safety of workers and
worksites.
Regrettably, current regulatory policies from OSHA have expanded
from its core objective. This is particularly concerning in the context
of safety, where clear and effective regulations are crucial to
protecting these vulnerable workers.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Worker
Walkaround
Historically, an employee--and when necessary and justified a
relevant expert--could accompany an OSHA inspector during jobsite
inspections. Recently, OSHA expanded this rule, allowing any third
party to accompany an inspector if deemed ``reasonably necessary,''
removing the requirements for good cause and specific expertise.
The previous, longstanding rule enumerated examples of qualified
individuals, such as industrial hygienists or safety engineers.
Instead, a third party can join an inspection if deemed ``reasonably
necessary'' by the inspector, who has broad discretion to decide based
on factors like relevant knowledge and communication skills. This
expanded eligibility also includes individuals with prior relationships
with employees.
In the transportation construction industry, the expanded rule
could have several impacts. Union representatives might access non-
union worksites for unauthorized organizing. Employers may face
increased risks and liabilities if a third party is injured on an
active site, especially if they are unfamiliar with proper safety
protocols.
Third parties with ulterior motives might gather information for
litigation, while their overall presence could distract employees and,
once again, compromise safety. There are also privacy concerns about
exposing proprietary information. Additionally, inspections could lead
to operational delays and increased project costs.
OSHA claims this rule provides clarity, but it opens a door to new,
undefined individuals and may result in delays, complications, and
legal risks. Congress should require OSHA to remove this recent update
to its regulation.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Heat Safety
Standards
OSHA announced a July 2, 2024, proposal to establish heat safety
standards in indoor and outdoor settings. Despite comments from ARTBA
and others urging OSHA not to enact a one-size-fits-all rulemaking, the
agency is proposing to set nationwide heat triggers. ARTBA proposed
OSHA adopt regional approaches, as workers in different settings are
acclimatized to different temperatures.
ARTBA urged OSHA to allow employers to continue to implement the
practices that best suit their employees, rather than requiring broad,
prescriptive methods to address potential heat illness issues. Heat is
not a new hazard for the transportation construction industry, and
OSHA's rule fails to account for the unique nature of the
transportation construction industry, like the need for continuous
activity during certain paving work. ARTBA members employ the most
innovative and effective methods available to protect their workers,
and OSHA's proposal may detract from jobsite safety and effective
project delivery with its combination of prescriptive break times and
burdensome recordkeeping.
Federal Highway Administration, Highway Safety Improvement
Program
Approximately 900 fatalities occur in and around transportation
construction worksites annually, and as many as 200 are roadway
construction professionals. Ensuring a safe workplace for the thousands
of professionals tasked with delivering mobility and safety
enhancements envisioned by the IIJA is ARTBA's top priority.
As thousands of new projects are initiated, there will also be an
increased number of work zones, resulting in increased risk exposure
for workers. The transportation construction community is committed to
doing its part to mitigate an increase in the number of safety-related
incidents.
FHWA's Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) rule is a well-
meaning attempt to protect vulnerable road users but misses a key
vulnerable group: roadway workers. The HSIP requires states to develop
and implement strategic highway safety plans to reduce fatalities and
serious injuries on all public roads. ARTBA has urged FHWA to
explicitly recognize highway workers as vulnerable road users in all
roadway safety initiatives. The health and well-being of workers who
build and maintain transportation systems are not always fully
considered by those who depend on them.
Roadway construction workers are not discretionary system users.
They are required to be in work zones to aid the traveling public and
support their families. They deserve the same prioritization as
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Looking Ahead to 2026
Regulations should support, rather than hinder, the efficient and
effective deployment of IIJA funds in the law's remaining years. In
support of that, ARTBA offers the following recommendations:
Pass H.R. 8204, the Bipartisan Regulatory Early Notice
and Engagement Act of 2024--this bipartisan legislation would increase
transparency and engagement in the rulemaking process.
Continued congressional oversight--a constant dialogue
with federal agency officials on regulatory proposals is a valuable
tool to ensure the law is implemented as Congress intended. This
committee should continue to request testimony and updates from
administration officials.
Pursue additional reforms to enhance project delivery--
the IIJA suggested a two-year goal for environmental reviews, which was
strengthened in subsequent legislation to a requirement. Congress
should consider additional policy reforms to streamline the permitting
process and increase coordination among federal agencies.
Provide agencies with clear directives in legislation--
the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of the Chevron doctrine spotlights
the crucial role of congressional leadership in ensuring that
legislation is unambiguous, preventing regulations from ending up in
litigation. ARTBA looks forward to its continued partnership with
lawmakers to ensure that federal regulations are consistent with
congressional intent.
Timely engagement on reauthorization--a key driver for
transportation construction investment is funding certainty to help
states plan long-term investments. With the authorization of core
surface transportation programs expiring in nearly two years, Congress
should begin assessing current law and identifying priorities for
timely enactment of a new, five-year law by October 1, 2026, including
enacting revenue solutions for solvency of the Highway Trust Fund.
The federal role to develop and maintain a national transportation
system is a responsibility enshrined in the U.S. Constitution that
enables interstate commerce, supports the economy, and improves quality
of life.
Thank you for the opportunity to share some of the practical
impacts that a complex regulatory environment can have on the
fulfillment of this responsibility.
ARTBA looks forward to collaborating with this committee to help
ensure federal regulations work in concert with the delivery of a
reliable and safe national transportation network for the nation.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, sir. Mr. Bell, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF PHILIP K. BELL, CAE, PRESIDENT, STEEL
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (SMA)
Mr. Bell. Good morning, Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member
Norton, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to share ideas with you today.
My name is Philip Bell. I am president of the Steel
Manufacturers Association. The SMA is the largest U.S. trade
association for steel. Our members are investing in the future.
Between 2022 and 2026, they will have invested more than
$20 billion, leading the way in the electrification,
modernization, job creation, and further decarbonization of
America's steel industry, which is already the cleanest in the
world. As the Federal Highway Administration implements its Buy
Clean program, it must promote low-emission steelmaking and
adhere to statutory requirements established by Congress.
A little background might be helpful. There are currently
two ways to make steel. The traditional blast furnace
production method is a centuries-old, coal-based, high-
emissions way of making steel. By contrast, SMA members use
recycling-based electric arc furnaces to manufacture steel with
an emissions profile 70 percent lower than traditional
producers.
EAFs are inherently more efficient and lower emitting,
which is why virtually every new U.S. steel mill built in the
last 50 years has been an electric furnace. EAF production
dominates the steel used in our Nation's infrastructure,
including 99 percent of all domestic rebar, wire rod, light
shapes, wire mesh, and structural beams. Electric furnaces and
blast furnaces can make the same grades and types of steel. The
finished products from either method are identical. From a
customer perspective, the type of steel production process does
not matter.
America's reliance on EAF production gives us a significant
carbon advantage over our global competition. In fact, the
domestic steel industry emits 75 to 320 percent less carbon
than global producers. So, why does this carbon emissions
advantage matter?
The IRA appropriated more than $4 billion to the GSA and
Federal Highway Administration to purchase construction
materials that have substantially lower levels of embodied
greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA defines ``substantially
lower'' to mean products with the lowest 20 percent of
emissions.
SMA believes that a well-designed Buy Clean program can
meaningfully accelerate decarbonization and assist in securing
a stable future for the American steel industry and its
workers. However, we have serious concerns with the GSA's
implementation of its Buy Clean program and their adoption of a
dual emissions standard for steel. We urge that Federal Highway
reject GSA's misguided approach.
For multiple steel product categories, GSA has set separate
emissions standards for steel products simply based on how they
are made. Under this dual standard, steel produced from blast
furnaces will be subject to more lenient requirements than
those made in modern electric furnaces despite an identical end
product.
This is contrary to the Buy Clean statute, which requires
that only materials with substantially lower emissions be
purchased. This market-distorting action discriminates against
companies and workers that have invested heavily and worked
tirelessly to reach substantially lower emission levels. GSA
justifies this dual standard by claiming that electric furnaces
cannot produce all the same types and grades of steel and that
there will be an insufficient supply of recycled scrap to
support greater EAF production. Both claims are wrong.
First, there is simply no dispute that electric furnaces
can produce the grades and types of steel needed for
construction projects and Government procurement.
Second, recent data by the OECD shows that global scrap
surpluses will exist through at least 2050. In fact, the United
States has so much steel scrap that we are a net exporter. GSA
did not have a legitimate reason to set two standards, and
neither does the Federal Highway Administration.
To conclude, a single standard is simple and transparent. A
single standard is fair to all producers and encourages
innovation and investment. A single standard results in the
greatest emissions reductions and will further our global
advantage on lower emission steel.
And, finally, a single standard is the only way to comply
with the statute.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I look
forward to continued engagement with members of the committee.
[Mr. Bell's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Philip K. Bell, CAE, President, Steel
Manufacturers Association (SMA)
Good morning, Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton and
distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you to discuss the Department of Transportation's
regulatory and administrative agenda. As the Federal Highway
Administration (``FHWA'') and other federal agencies implement Buy
Clean programs, it is imperative that they are designed to promote low
emissions steelmaking and adhere to the statutory requirements
established by Congress.
Introduction
My name is Philip Bell. I am a 35-year manufacturing industry
veteran. I developed an interest in the steel industry in the 1980s
while working in maintenance and operations at American Chrome and
Chemicals Company in Corpus Christi, TX. Our plant made chromium
coatings that are used in the electroplating of metal products. I have
been president of the Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) for over a
decade. Prior to the SMA I held executive-level positions with Gerdau
North America, the SGL Carbon Group, and Qualitech Steel Corporation. I
am extremely proud to be a part of and represent an industry that is
the backbone of our country. The steel industry is a wonderful and
glorious industry that has built careers, companies, communities,
cities and even civilizations.
The SMA is the largest U.S. trade association for steel. SMA
members are focused on safety, sustainability and innovation. Our
members make essential products for America's infrastructure, national
security, energy and manufacturing sectors. Between 2022 and 2026 our
members will have announced, started or finished new capex projects
worth more than $20 billion, leading the way in the electrification,
modernization and further decarbonization of America's steel industry,
which is already the cleanest in the world.
Modern Steel Industry
There are currently two ways to make steel. The traditional blast
furnace/basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) production method is a centuries
old, extractive, coal-based, high emissions way of making steel. 90% of
the steel made in China uses this carbon intensive process. By
contrast, SMA members use recycling- and scrap-based electric arc
furnaces (EAFs) to manufacture steel with an emissions profile 70%
lower than traditional BF-BOF producers. EAFs are inherently more
efficient and lower emitting, which is why virtually every new U.S.
steel mill built in the last 50 years has been an EAF. As a result,
EAFs currently account for 70% of the steel made in the United States.
EAF production dominates the steel used in our nation's infrastructure,
including 99% of the domestic rebar (structural integrity of bridges,
highways, buildings and foundations), wire rod (reinforcement), light
shapes (strength and elasticity for load-bearing structures), wire mesh
(holds concrete in place) and structural beams (creates strong and
stable structures). EAF steel also accounts for the vast majority of
plate, sheet, and pipe products used in construction. EAFs and BF-BOF
can make all the same grades and types of steel. The finished products
from either method are virtually identical. America's reliance on EAF
production gives us a significant carbon advantage over our global
competitors. In fact, the domestic steel industry emits 75-320% less
carbon than global producers.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CRU, Emissions Analysis Executive Summary (June 14, 2022)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Single Buy Clean Standard for Steel is the Only Solution
SMA believes that well-designed Buy Clean programs have the
potential to meaningfully accelerate decarbonization and assist in
securing a stable future for the American steel industry and its
workers. However, we have serious concerns with the General Services
Administration's (GSA) implementation of its Buy Clean program and, in
particular, the adoption of a dual emissions standard that favors
integrated BF-BOF steel production over recycling based EAF production.
We urge the FHWA and other agencies to reject GSA's misguided approach.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) appropriated more than $4 billion
to the GSA and the FHWA to purchase construction materials that ``have
substantially lower levels of embodied greenhouse gas emissions'' as
determined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).\2\ The EPA
defined ``substantially lower'' to mean products with the lowest 20% of
embodied emissions when compared to similar materials.\3\ There is no
ambiguity in the requirement that purchases under these programs are
limited to those with ``substantially lower'' emissions. However, the
dual emissions standard adopted by GSA is inconsistent with this
statutory requirement and harms the goals of Buy Clean policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, H.R. 5376, 117th Cong. Sec.
60503(a)
\3\ EPA Guidelines on Inflation Reduction Act Programs https://
www.epa.gov/inflation-
reduction-act/inflation-reduction-act-programs-fight-climate-change-
reducing-embodied#: :text=
For%20purposes%20of%20the%20interim,in%20embodied%20greenhouse%20gas%20e
mission
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, for multiple steel product categories, GSA has set
separate emissions standards for steel products made by integrated BF-
BOF mills and those made by modern, efficient EAFs. Under this dual
standard, steel produced in BF-BOF mills will be subject to more
lenient emissions requirements than those made in EAFs. This means that
a steel product made in a BF-BOF facility may be considered just as
clean or cleaner than a steel product made in an EAF facility with much
lower emissions. As a result, low emissions steel that would qualify as
clean under a single standard may not qualify under a dual standard,
while high emission steel that has substantially higher emissions, may
qualify as clean. This is contrary to the statute, which requires that
only materials with ``substantially lower'' emissions be purchased. It
also discriminates against companies and workers that invested heavily
and worked tirelessly to reach substantially lower emissions levels.
Further, dual standards like the one adopted by GSA are bad climate
policy. They will result in higher total emissions by creating a carve-
out for the highest emitting producers. By encouraging the continued
acquisition of high emissions steel and not promoting purchases of the
lowest emissions steel, the government will not put maximum pressure on
the highest emitters to decarbonize. Transitioning towards low emitting
technologies like EAFs is the quickest and most reliable way to
significantly reduce the greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emissions associated
with steelmaking in the United States and across the globe. Buy Clean
policies that do not distinguish between production technologies or raw
material inputs can help accelerate the decarbonization of the American
steel industry and send the right signals to steelmakers globally.
GSA justifies its dual standard by claiming that EAFs cannot
produce the same types and grades of steel products as BF-BOFs (e.g.,
exposed automotive, advanced high strength, electrical, and tin mill
steels) and that there will be insufficient scrap supply to support
greater EAF production. Both claims are wrong and not supported by the
market.
First, EAFs can produce the same types and grades of steel as BF-
BOFs. Further, the products that integrated producers claim cannot be
made by EAFs are not the types of construction products covered by Buy
Clean programs. There is simply no dispute that EAFs can produce the
grades and types of steel needed for construction projects and
government procurement. Even for the most demanding steels, many of the
BF-BOFs that are transitioning towards EAF production publicly
acknowledge that their EAFs can produce the same types of advanced
products as their BF-BOF operations.
Second, the availability of scrap does not limit the ability of
EAFs to supply a greater and significant percentage of steel demand.
Recent data from the OECD show a global scrap surplus through at least
2050. In fact, the United States is a significant net exporter of
scrap. The availability of scrap is not a concern for construction
grade products. And as far as automotive grades are concerned, recent
technological advancements are increasing the available substitutes for
prime scrap, and EAFs can produce high quality steel with little or no
prime scrap.
SMA appreciates FHWA's work in developing its Buy Clean program and
its efforts to engage domestic steel producers in doing so. We
encourage the agency to avoid the same misguided approach as GSA.
Consistent with the IRA, FHWA should adopt a single emissions standard
that applies equally to all products regardless of their production
process or raw material inputs. All that should matter under FHWA's Buy
Clean program are the actual embodied emissions of the products and
that the production and use of materials with the lowest embodied
emissions are encouraged.
From the customer perspective, the type of steel production process
does not matter. Steel is purchased according to industry grades and
standards that do not distinguish based on production technology or raw
material inputs. In this sense, an emissions standard that
differentiates by production process, such as a dual standard, delays
decarbonization by allowing the highest emitting producers to claim
they are cleaner than their actual emissions. It also discourages
recycling and penalizes companies for investing in circular
steelmaking. Instead, there should be a single standard based on actual
emissions.
A single standard is simple and transparent. A single
standard makes clear to customers, business partners, and governments
who are the lowest and highest emitting producers based on total,
actual emissions, without caveats based on production process. High
emissions producers should not be allowed to conceal the significant
gap between the dirtiest and cleanest producers. Put simply, if two
steel products are identical, they should be held to the same Buy Clean
emissions requirements.
A single standard is fair to all producers and encourages
innovation and investment. A single standard does not prioritize
specific steel production processes or raw material inputs and, in
doing so, it incentivizes investment in all production pathways,
including the types of steel technologies that will be needed to
achieve significant reductions in the future. There is no longer a
clear divide between EAF and BF-BOF production, and the future of
steelmaking will require a variety of technologies. Buy Clean policies
should promote the development and adoption of all types of new and low
emissions steelmaking processes, rather than locking-in old
technologies and production routes.
A single standard results in the greatest emissions
reductions and will further our global advantage on low emissions
steel. By applying equally to all producers and production
methodologies, a single standard rewards those with the lowest embodied
GHG emissions and promotes the fastest possible transition by companies
who do not qualify for preferred government procurement under these
programs.
In short, FHWA and other federal agencies should not differentiate
between steel products made in EAFs or BF-BOFs, but rather adopt a
single emissions standard that applies the same requirements to all
steel producers and steel products, regardless of their production
technology or raw materials. Doing otherwise would create a Buy Clean
program that disadvantages carbon efficient producers and workers,
mislabels dirty steel as clean, and tempers our ambition to
decarbonize.
* * *
Because of America's tremendous carbon advantage on steel,
successful Buy Clean programs can be a powerful tool to meaningfully
reduce emissions and support the American steel industry and its
workers. A single standard that applies equally to all producers is the
only way to comply with the statute, maximize emissions reductions, and
incentivize investment in decarbonization. Thank you for inviting me to
testify today. I look forward to continued engagement with members of
this committee.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Bell.
Mr. Pugh.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM ``LEWIE'' PUGH, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION (OOIDA)
Mr. Pugh. Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Holmes Norton
and members of the subcommittee, I am Lewie Pugh, and I am a
proud trucker. I also serve as the executive vice president of
the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association. I laid out
my career as a trucker in the United States Army. After that, I
spent 23 years driving a truck as a small-business motor
carrier, amassing 2.5 million safe miles across this country. I
still hold my CDL today.
OOIDA is the largest trade association representing small-
business truckers and professional drivers across the country.
We have 150,000 members in all 50 States who operate
collectively 240,000 pieces of equipment. OOIDA promotes and
protects the interests of our members on issues impacting
economic well-being, working conditions, and safe operation of
a commercial motor vehicle.
Small trucking businesses account for 96 percent of all
registered motor carriers in the U.S., and they are undoubtedly
the safest and most diverse operators on the road. Trucking is
one of the most heavily regulated industries in America.
From the number of hours you can drive to the color and
width of tape that you must put on your trailer to even when
you can go home, every element of trucking is controlled by
regulation. Complying with existing regulations, many of which
have no connection to safety, can be overwhelming even for the
most experienced drivers. In some cases, it is damn near
impossible.
While compliance rates have never been higher, there are
those, including large motor carriers, shippers, safety
advocates, and elected officials, along with bureaucrats, who
not only resist in modernizing or eliminating needless
regulations but want to impose even more rules on the American
trucker.
Some folks want to mandate speed limiters on all commercial
vehicles while dismissing the disastrous consequences and
concerns of highway safety and supply chain issues. Others with
no experience in a commercial motor vehicle want to mandate the
use of unproven and cost-prohibitive equipment like side
underride guards. Unfortunately, these examples only scratch
the surface.
If this is painting a picture of a dysfunctional regulatory
environment where practical solutions have become secondary
considerations, you are starting to see things like an OOIDA
member. Let me be clear, OOIDA and our members are not anti-
regulation. We have a long history of supporting regulations
that address critical needs in our industry and are backed by
sound research and data.
We have pushed for enhanced driver training requirements,
improved broker transparency, stronger truck leasing rules,
better driver pay, and a more accurate and reliable safety
rating system. Unfortunately, Congress and DOT have an
inconsistent record when it comes to crafting regulations.
Even members of this subcommittee have demonstrated
inconsistency when it comes to developing regulations that
support truckers and highway safety. On a positive note,
Ranking Member Holmes Norton has championed a bipartisan
legislation to fight freight fraud, and Representative Van Drew
has introduced a bipartisan bill to eliminate the overtime
exemption to ensure drivers are paid for all the hours that
they work.
In contrast, other lawmakers, at the behest of trial
lawyers, have continued to push a massive 500-percent increase
in liability insurance minimums despite knowing the existing
minimum covers the cost of 99 percent of crashes.
Even the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided a
mixed bag for truckers. On one hand, Congress included
provisions to combat predatory leasing. On the other, the bill
authorized an overly ambitious automatic emergency braking
mandate. It has also created an underride committee dominated
by blatantly biased participants who failed in their mission to
generate a consensus on the ways to reduce underride crashes,
fatalities, and injuries.
While Congress' record features positive and negative
aspects, truckers are completely frustrated with DOT's
regulatory actions, mostly concerning the Department's wildly
unpopular and dangerous speed limiter mandate, its efforts to
water down CDL requirements, the slow pace of addressing broker
transparency, and improving the National Consumer Complaint
Database.
In the end, truckers want regulations that reflect their
needs and the changing dynamics of their industry. It is time
for Congress and DOT to help make trucking an appealing, safe,
and sustainable career by listening to the people who make
their living behind the wheel.
Thank you for this opportunity.
[Mr. Pugh's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William ``Lewie'' Pugh, Executive Vice President,
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, and members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Lewie Pugh and I am the Executive Vice
President of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
(OOIDA). Prior to working at OOIDA, I was a small-business trucker for
nearly 23 years with 2.5 million miles of safe driving. Before
operating my own trucking business, I drove a truck during my service
in the United States Army. I still proudly hold a Commercial Driver's
License (CDL). In short, I've been a trucker my entire career.
About OOIDA
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is the largest
trade association representing the views of small-business truckers and
professional truck drivers. OOIDA has approximately 150,000 members
located in all fifty states that collectively own and operate more than
240,000 individual heavy-duty trucks. OOIDA's mission is to promote and
protect the interests of our members on any issues that impact their
economic well-being, working conditions, and the safe operation of
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) on our nation's highways.
Small trucking businesses, like those we represent, account for 96
percent of registered motor carriers in the United States, making them
a key component of the nation's supply chain. We are undoubtedly the
safest and most diverse operators on our nation's roads. Every region
of our country and segment of our economy relies upon long-haul truck
drivers. Our members are an integral part of the global supply chain
and have a unique perspective on the many challenges our nation faces
in moving freight in the safest, most efficient manner.
Introduction
Trucking is one of the most heavily regulated industries in
America. Federal regulations affect nearly every aspect of a
professional driver's life. From the number of hours they can drive
before taking a break or shutting down, to the color and width of tape
they must use on their trailers, nearly every element of trucking is
controlled by a regulation. Complying with existing regulations, many
of which have absolutely no connection with safety, can be overwhelming
for even the most experienced driver. In some cases, it can be damn
near impossible.
While compliance rates with this dizzying array of regulations have
never been higher, there are those, including large motor carriers,
shippers, safety advocates, elected officials, and bureaucrats, who not
only resist modernizing or eliminating needless regulations, but want
to impose even more impractical and ineffective rules on American
truckers.
Some of these entities want to go so far as mandating speed
limiters on all commercial vehicles, which could force truckers to
travel 20 mph below the posted speed limit. Supporters have dismissed
concerns about the disastrous consequences this regulation would have
on highway safety and the supply chain. Others, with no experience in
the day-to-day operation of a CMV, want to mandate the use of unproven
and cost-prohibitive equipment like side underride guards that would
jeopardize the safety of drivers and the future of their businesses.
There are even members of this Committee who want to dramatically
increase the amount of liability insurance truckers must carry, knowing
this increase is entirely unnecessary and will immediately destroy
innumerable small trucking businesses.
If this paints a picture of a dysfunctional regulatory environment
where practical solutions have become secondary considerations, then
you're starting to see things like an OOIDA member.
Let me be clear, OOIDA and our members are not anti-regulation, as
some would have you believe. In fact, the opposite is true. We have a
long history of supporting regulations that address critical needs in
our industry and are backed by sound research and data. For decades, we
have pushed for enhanced driver training requirements to ensure the men
and women behind the wheel of a CMV are prepared to operate at the
safest level. We've also pushed for greater broker transparency,
stronger truck leasing requirements, better driver pay, and more
accurate and reliable safety ratings systems.
Truckers believe Congress and the Department of Transportation
(DOT) have inconsistent records when it comes to crafting regulations
that support their needs. Even members of this Subcommittee have
demonstrated inconsistency when it comes to developing regulations that
advance our shared objective of improving highway safety and supporting
those who make their living on the road.
On a positive note, Ranking Member Holmes Norton and Representative
Ezell have championed bipartisan legislation to fight freight fraud,
which is destroying small trucking businesses every day, and Rep. Van
Drew has introduced a bipartisan bill to eliminate the overtime
exemption for truckers, ensuring drivers are paid for all the hours
they work. In contrast, other lawmakers, at the behest of trial
lawyers, continue to push for a massive 500% increase in liability
insurance minimums that would immediately kill small trucking
businesses, despite knowing the existing minimum of $750,000 covers
costs in over 99% of crashes involving a CMV.
Even the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) provided a
mixed bag for truckers. On one hand, Congress included provisions that
will combat predatory lease agreements that take advantage of truckers.
On the other, the bill authorized an overly-ambitious automatic
emergency braking (AEB) mandate that ignores known limitations and
deficiencies with the technology. The Act also created an underride
committee dominated by blatantly-biased participants who failed in
their mission to generate consensus on ways to reduce underride
crashes, fatalities, and injuries.
While Congress's recent record features both positive and negative
aspects, truckers have grown frustrated with the Biden Administration's
regulatory steps initiated under their own authority. First and
foremost is the wildly unpopular and dangerous speed limiter mandate
proposed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA),
which should be withdrawn immediately. We are also concerned by FMCSA's
efforts to water down commercial driver's license (CDL) requirements at
a time when we should be enhancing driver training regulations. Even
when moving in the right direction, such as working to improve broker
transparency and enhancing the ability of truckers to report safety
risks through the National Consumer Complaint Database (NCCDB), the
agency is painfully and unnecessarily slow to act. Outside DOT,
truckers can't believe the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
moving forward with more crippling emissions regulations.
In the end, truckers want regulations that reflect their needs and
the changing dynamics of their industry. It's time for Congress and DOT
to help make trucking an appealing, safe and sustainable career by
listening first to the people that make their living behind-the-wheel.
Speed Limiters
In April 2022, DOT reopened a potential speed limiter mandate on
all CMVs over 26,000 pounds, despite receiving overwhelming opposition
after its initial 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Any speed limiter
mandate would be harmful for road safety, crash rates, driver
retention, and supply chain performance. By establishing a one-size-
fits-all federal mandate restricting heavy-duty CMVs to a speed that is
separate from passenger vehicles, this regulation would create
dangerous speed differentials between trucks and cars. Decades of
highway research shows greater speed differentials increase
interactions, such as passing or braking, between truck drivers and
other road users. Studies have consistently demonstrated that
increasing these interactions directly increases the likelihood of
crashes.
In many states, this mandate would create split speed limits on
two-lane rural roads, which are particularly hazardous. In these
conditions, passenger vehicles that want to travel at the posted limit
get stuck behind slower-moving trucks, increasing the number of risky
passes they must make using the oncoming lane of traffic. Speed
limiting trucks also increases pressure on drivers to complete their
work. Truckers required to operate below the posted speed limit must
drive longer hours to cover the same distance, which increases their
fatigue and places even greater stress on them to comply with
burdensome federal hours-of-service regulations. A speed limiter
mandate would also exacerbate supply chain challenges. By prohibiting
trucks from traveling at the posted speed limit in certain areas, this
mandate will literally slow down freight movement across the country.
If the regulation is implemented, more trucks will be needed to carry
the same amount of freight in the same amount of time, which also
increases road congestion and contributes to higher crash rates.
Furthermore, this mandate would be especially bad for small
businesses. Some large motor carriers already use speed limiters as a
fleet management tool, but small business and single-truck operators
have no need for these devices. A government mandate would ultimately
take away one of the last competitive advantages that small businesses
have over large carriers. In its rulemaking, FMCSA admitted this
mandate would be bad for small businesses, stating, ``small trucking
companies, especially independent owner-operators, would be less
profitable with speed limiting devices.''
There is already a mechanism in place to address vehicle speeds:
speed limits set and enforced by the states. In 1995, Congress repealed
the national speed limit and gave states the authority to establish
speed limits for their roads. Since then, states have been able to
design their roadways and set top speeds according to what they have
determined to be safest for their specific needs and conditions.
FMCSA's ongoing rulemaking ignores this long-standing authority.
OOIDA is leading a coalition comprised of transportation
stakeholders in support of H.R. 3039, the Deregulating Restrictions on
Interstate Vehicles and Eighteen-Wheelers (DRIVE) Act. The legislation
prohibits FMCSA from implementing regulations mandating the use of
speed limiters on heavy-duty trucks. We encourage all subcommittee
members to support H.R. 3039 and hope the DRIVE Act can be enacted
before FMCSA promulgates another dangerous mandate.
Automatic Emergency Braking
Section 23010 of IIJA required DOT to prescribe federal motor
vehicle safety standards for AEB systems on newly manufactured CMVs.
The legislation also required DOT to directly consult with
representatives of CMV drivers regarding the experiences truckers have
had with AEB systems as a means to identify and address deficiencies in
technologies that are already in use.
DOT ignored these requirements prior to publishing an AEB NPRM in
June 2023, claiming previous outreach to truckers, initiated before the
AEB rulemaking began, satisfied the requirement to consult with
drivers. We disagree. Additionally, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) has an open investigation into AEB systems on
certain heavy-duty trucks because of reports of false activations.
These factors resulted in a proposal that did not adequately ensure AEB
systems could meet necessary safety standards before the technology
requirement becomes effective.
The NPRM contained four irresponsible flaws: (1) failure to address
false activations; (2) inadequate consultation with professional truck
drivers; (3) precedes necessary completion of ongoing research; and (4)
cloaks deficient testing processes with minimum performance
expectations. These shortcomings negligently pose highway safety risks
to the motoring public and to professional drivers alike. Congress must
ensure that DOT addresses these deficiencies in the pending AEB Final
Rule anticipated in January 2025. If not, AEB systems will jeopardize
our members' safety and create otherwise avoidable hazards on our
roads.
Freight Fraud
The evolution of technology, a lack of federal oversight, and a
failure to prioritize criminal enforcement have all contributed to an
unprecedented rise in fraudulent activity in trucking over the last few
years. Motor carriers are victimized through unpaid claims, unpaid
loads, double brokered loads, or load phishing schemes on a daily
basis. This costs the trucking industry over $800 million annually.
Freight fraud committed by criminals and scam artists has been
particularly devastating to many small business truckers simply trying
to survive in a tough freight market. The current regulatory framework
limits enforcement, enables bad actors to operate with impunity, and
forces out drivers who want to build sustainable trucking careers.
In recent months, FMCSA has taken initial steps that may curtail
fraud, including finalizing a long-awaited Broker and Freight Forwarder
Financial Responsibility Rule, announcing a registration fraud team,
and preparing modernization updates to the motor carrier/broker
registration process. However, many drivers remain skeptical that these
changes will be sufficient to substantively address the problem. OOIDA
strongly supports H.R. 8505, the Household Goods Shipping Consumer
Protection Act--bipartisan legislation introduced by Ranking Member
Holmes Norton and Rep. Mike Ezell. The bill restores and codifies
FMCSA's authority to issue civil penalties against bad actors, and also
requires brokers, freight forwarders, and motor carriers provide a
valid business address to FMCSA in order to register for authority.
H.R. 8505 would provide FMCSA with better tools to root out
unscrupulous actors, which are also harmful to consumers and highway
safety. We hope this bill will be marked-up by the Full Committee
without delay.
Broker Transparency
For years, small-business truckers have expressed frustration that
regulations designed to provide transparency are routinely evaded by
brokers or simply not enforced by FMCSA. 49 CFR Sec. 371.3 mandates
that brokers keep transaction records and permits each party to a
brokered transaction to review these documents. These regulations are
in place to protect motor carriers, brokers, and the public by ensuring
the transparent and smooth movement of goods throughout the supply
chain. This transparency helps owner-operators when brokers send them
bills regarding disputed claims, such as damages. Without this
information, it is impossible to know if these charges are legitimate.
Unfortunately, many brokers deliberately implement hurdles they know
will prevent a carrier from ever seeing this information.
To ensure that truckers have access to the documents they have a
right to review under existing regulations, OOIDA petitioned FMCSA to
require brokers to automatically provide an electronic copy of each
transaction record within 48 hours after the contractual service has
been completed, and explicitly prohibit brokers from including any
provision in their contracts that requires a carrier to waive their
rights to access the transaction records as required by existing
regulations.
In March 2023, FMCSA announced it would launch a rulemaking to
address our petition. Yet, the proposal is not expected until October
2024. If rules are promulgated to improve broker transparency and DOT
better enforces current regulations, the economic stability of the
trucking industry would be more assured and the reliability of our
supply chain would improve.
Underride Protection
Underride crashes are accidents where a passenger vehicle travels
under a semi-trailer in a truck-involved crash. While these types of
accidents are very rare, they are truly tragic and forever alter the
lives of the individuals and families involved.
OOIDA supported NHTSA's 2022 Final Rule improving rear guard
standards and annual inspection requirements, which was required by
IIJA. However, professional drivers have numerous concerns about
mandating side underride equipment. OOIDA has discussed operational
challenges regarding rail-crossings, loading docks, and low ground
clearances with Congress, as well as equipment damage resulting from
curbs, roundabouts, speed bumps, and other highway features.
IIJA also required DOT to establish the Advisory Committee on
Underride Protection (ACUP) to study underride crashes and provide
recommendations on how to reduce injuries and fatalities from these
crashes. Congress purposefully required that the committee include a
diverse membership, including trucking companies, truckers,
manufacturers, as well as safety advocates. In establishing this
committee, DOT specifically tasked the panel with providing, ``written
consensus advice to the Secretary on underride protection to reduce
underride crashes and fatalities.'' Congress and DOT intended that this
committee find broad areas of agreement among stakeholders and develop
practical recommendations for their consideration.
ACUP failed spectacularly in its mission. In short, safety
advocates and other biased committee members used their slim numerical
advantage on the committee to redefine ``consensus'' to mean a simple
majority. Once this change was made, a bare majority of committee
members issued its ``majority'' report, which is essentially a
haphazard compilation of safety advocates' unrealistic wishes.
Recommendations included in the majority report completely ignore the
legitimate concerns of other committee participants--concerns that are
informed by data, testing, and real-world experience. Because of the
committee's failings, dissenting members were compelled to issue a
``minority'' ACUP report.
NHTSA's most recent research once again found that the costs of a
side underride guard mandate would significantly outweigh the benefits.
Just last year, NHTSA estimated equipping new trailers and semitrailers
with side underride guards would be six to eight times the
corresponding estimated safety benefits, even when omitting all of the
associated feasibility costs. These updated findings, along with the
dissenting reports produced by the ACUP, indicate that the development
of performance standards for side underride guards, or a mandate that
trucks be fitted with this equipment, remains unwarranted. The NHTSA
rulemaking process, coupled with the activity of the advisory
committee, represents a massive waste of government time and resources
pursuing a regulation that is entirely untenable.
Neither Congress nor NHTSA should advance potential new underride
standards until further research and analysis are completed. The only
recommendations that garnered true consensus support among ACUP panel
members generally involved enhancing research and reporting. As such,
these are the only elements of the final report Congress and NHTSA
should take seriously.
Entry-Level Driver Training
Too many new drivers are still getting behind the wheel without the
basic skills needed to safely operate a CMV--even after Entry-Level
Driver Training (ELDT) regulations have been in place for two-plus
years. This will not change until the ELDT rule is supplemented to
include more comprehensive standards, such as a minimum number of hours
of behind-the-wheel training. The insufficient ELDT regulations are
failing new drivers when they encounter unfamiliar conditions,
scenarios, and other challenges that weren't included in their limited
training. This presents serious safety concerns. We encourage FMCSA to
share findings from the pending agency review of the ELDT trainer
registry to determine what degree ELDT regulatory objectives have been
met and how regulations can be improved. Strengthening ELDT
requirements is a no-brainer to improving driver retention and reducing
truck-related crashes.
Commercial Driver's License Flexibility
Instead of focusing on enhancing driver training, FMCSA has
astonishingly proposed to waive certain training provisions and CDL
regulations. Most notably, the agency intends to remove safety
requirements for a CDL holder to accompany a commercial learner's
permit (CLP) holder when the CLP driver is behind-the-wheel. This
regulation is designed to ensure that inexperienced drivers will have
sufficient training, instruction, and oversight as they learn the job.
Given that ELDT standards do not contain a minimum number of behind-
the-wheel training hours, we believe it would be unwise to eliminate
this requirement since it provides new entrants at least some
additional driving experience with a more tenured trucker. FMCSA had
previously noted that, ``safety considerations outweigh convenience
during driver training,'' but is now seemingly accommodating a petition
from large motor carriers based on the false premise of a driver
``shortage.''
Rather than proposing ways to expedite the CDL training and
administration processes, FMCSA must focus on solutions to address high
turnover rates by bolstering driver training programs. We strongly
oppose any rulemakings or legislation that would reduce or roll back
existing CDL testing and administration requirements.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles--Phase 3
Clean air is a priority for everyone, including the truckers, but
emissions requirements for heavy-duty vehicles should be practical,
affordable, and reliable. Unfortunately, EPA has continued their
regulatory blitz on small-business truckers with their latest rule
establishing Phase 3 Greenhouse Gas Emission standards. Mom-and-pop
trucking businesses would be suffocated by the sheer cost and
operational challenges of effectively mandating zero-emission trucks
beginning in Model Years 2030-2032. The Phase 3 rule attempts to rush
production of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) while a national
charging infrastructure network remains absent for heavy-duty trucks.
Professional drivers are skeptical of BEV costs, mileage range, battery
weight and safety, charging time, and availability.
OOIDA has joined with groups across dozens of industries to raise
concerns about the feasibility of the Phase 3 Final Rule. We believe
enacting H.J. Res. 133 is the best course of action to defeat this
misguided environmental mandate.
Truck Leasing Task Force
OOIDA has supported DOT's role in administering the Truck Leasing
Task Force (TLTF). Section 23009 of IIJA established TLTF to examine
the terms, conditions, and equitability of common truck leasing
arrangements, particularly as they impact owner-operators. During their
series of meetings beginning in July 2023, TLTF has particularly
focused on predatory lease-purchase agreements. Predatory truck leasing
schemes are another longstanding problem within in the industry.
Carriers and leasing entities peddling these ``opportunities''
typically offer the false promise of fair compensation, future
ownership of the truck, and ``independence'' from employer-employee
requirements. While the purported goal of these agreements is for the
driver to own the truck and become a full-fledged owner-operator at the
end of the lease, the agreements rarely work out that way. In the end,
drivers are paid pennies on the dollar with little chance of owning the
truck, and zero independence. This system pushes individuals who desire
a career in trucking out of the industry and further contributes to
driver churn. Additionally, the financial and personal pressures
resulting from escalating debt can create highway safety risks.
We anticipate that TLTF's report to Congress, DOT, and the
Department of Labor, which is expected in November 2024, will include a
number of consensus recommendations to overhaul the lease-purchase
model, create necessary regulatory oversight, and protect drivers from
undue financial exploitation.
Predatory Towing
The towing and recovery industry is an essential partner to
trucking that provides a critical service when truckers have a
breakdown or are involved in a crash. Yet the very nature of these
situations leaves motor carriers vulnerable to unscrupulous towing
companies. Predatory towing happens when a company imposes excessive or
unnecessary charges for equipment, services, damages, or anything else
the company dreams up. After a tow, motor carriers will often have
their equipment held hostage until they pay these exorbitant and
superfluous fees.
Predatory towing and fees are a particular problem with respect to
nonconsensual tows. These are situations where a truck breaks down or
is involved in a crash, and the truck owner does not have any power to
select a towing company for recovery. In these cases, the trucker is at
the mercy of the responding company, and has no way of knowing whether
they will be dealing with an honest tow service.
Unfortunately, predatory practices aren't limited to a small
segment of overall towing services. In a recent survey conducted by the
American Transportation Research Institute, they found that
approximately 30% of crash related tows included some form of predatory
billing.\1\ This same survey found that the average pre-tax total for a
crash-related tow was approximately $9,000, while the average predatory
bill was over $18,000.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alex Leslie and Alexa Pupillo, Causes and Countermeasures of
Predatory Towing, ATRI (Nov 2023), https://truckingresearch.org/2023/
11/causes-and-countermeasures-of-predatory-towing/
\2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OOIDA is supportive of FMCSA's efforts to combat these unfair and
unnecessary fees. In February 2024, FMCSA submitted comments to the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in response to its proposed rulemaking
on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, also known sometimes as ``junk fees.'' In
its comments, FMCSA accurately identified a number of predatory
practices, including \3\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-02/
FTC%20FMCSA%20Comment
%202.7.24.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Towing companies that provide an initial quote for a tow,
but then add additional, mandatory fees only after the job is
completed.
Towing companies that add vague or misleading fees, such
as ``administrative fees,'' that add no value or are completely
unnecessary.
Towing companies that simply charge excessive fees
because they have a captive customer.
We agree with FMCSA's comments that the FTC should act to prohibit
misleading or hidden fees, ensure clarity around the definition of
``total price,'' and impose restrictions on excessive fees, among other
recommendations.
In addition to these comments, FMCSA has also initiated a public
process (FMCSA-2024-0124) to collect more information on predatory
towing practices. The agency has held a public meeting on the issue,
and is also accepting written comments through July 31, 2024. We are
supportive of these efforts and hope that it will guide both the FTC
and FMCSA on how to crack down on these unfair practices.
DataQ
FMCSA allows motor carriers, truck drivers, and others to request a
review of FMCSA-issued data, such as violations and inspection reports,
that might be incomplete or incorrect. This is commonly referred to as
a Request for Data Review, or DataQ. States have the authority to
establish their own review process, and unfortunately, nearly all of
them have chosen a system that does not provide due process for truck
drivers or motor carriers.
In most cases, the DataQ review process is not objective--an appeal
determination is made by the same person or agency who issued the
violation, which creates an inherent conflict of interest. In other
words, very few law enforcement officers are willing to admit they made
a mistake. Furthermore, determinations are not made in a timely manner.
This is problematic because violations remain on a driver's or
carrier's safety record and can negatively impact the employability of
a driver and insurance costs for small motor carriers, among other
consequences. We have had members spend thousands of dollars in legal
fees over the course of many months just to have an obvious mistake
corrected.
OOIDA supports the development and implementation of a federal
DataQ appeals process that would provide transparency, consistency, and
timely adjudication of challenges. We are therefore appreciative that
the FMCSA has initiated a request for comments on improvements to the
DataQ system (FMCSA-2023-0190). As FMCSA considers modifications, we
believe the agency must establish a system where each reconsideration
request is addressed by a different reviewer than the person who
performed the initial review. This change will help to ensure a fair
review, as the individual who issued the violation is unlikely to
overturn their decision. We believe this change will also help to
improve the initial citation process, since the issuing officer knows
that any decisions they make will be subject to review by a different
person, possibly a superior.
Ideally, OOIDA supports a model that would allow states to setup a
five-member review board made up of two representatives of a state
commercial motor vehicle enforcement agency, one representative of a
state department of transportation, one representative of a motor
carrier, and one representative of a driver. FMCSA has already
identified states that use such a system and has recommended this as a
best practice that other states should follow.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov/DataQs/Data/Guide/
DataQs_Users_Guide_and_Best_
Practices_Manual.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Consumer Complaint Database
The National Consumer Complaint Database (NCCDB) is a system that
is used by truckers and others to report when motor carriers violate
safety regulations. FMCSA is responsible for this system, and
unfortunately, many truckers find it nearly useless and have little
confidence FMCSA takes action on any of the complaints they submit.
This system is critical for promoting safety, as it can help FMCSA
identify carriers that might be pressuring drivers to violate federal
hours-of-service or equipment maintenance regulations, among other
concerns. Drivers need an effective system to help them protect
themselves from carriers looking to take advantage of them and
jeopardize safety. Not only is the system supposed to address
individual violations, the findings from examining complaints could be
used to identify trends or larger problems in trucking.
Congress recognized the concerns with the NCCDB and, as part of
IIJA, required that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examine
the system and evaluate its effectiveness. GAO completed and issued its
report in September 2023, and some of the most concerning findings
include \5\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/d23105972.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast with DOT policy, FMCSA fails to make certain
information from NCCDB public. This means that FMCSA may be ``missing
the opportunity to improve transparency and collaboration with industry
partners.''
FMCSA has failed to establish appropriate controls or
procedures for collecting and investigating complaints. As a result,
FMCSA may not be consistently carrying out reviews and may be
jeopardizing their ability to respond to unsafe practices by motor
carriers.
FMCSA's public website failed to follow leading practices
for design and usability. Truckers have long complained that the site
is difficult to use, especially on a mobile device, and GAO confirmed
this specific concern.
GAO made a total of 14 recommendations to improve the system, all
of which remain open today. One of the most frustrating parts of GAO's
report is that, despite identifying these serious issues, FMCSA isn't
demonstrating any urgency to fix them. In response to the finding that
the agency has failed to implement controls and procedures to ensure
appropriate review of complaints, FMCSA said that it planned to update
the NCCDB in Fiscal Year 2026. This is beyond discouraging for truckers
who have long complained about the system. Truckers are properly held
to the highest standard when it comes to safety and compliance with
regulations. Yet when the federal government finds that one of its own
agencies is failing to live up to the standards necessary to promote
safety, it's apparently acceptable to tell truckers they'll just have
to wait a few more years until they get around to fixing the problem.
More generally, OOIDA maintains its concerns about the ambiguity of
the name ``National Consumer Complaint Database.'' This title is
misleading and does not signify a connection to the trucking industry
in any way. OOIDA believes the NCCDB can help improve safety, but many
drivers are unaware that the NCCDB is available for them to report
violations of regulations, nor are they aware that coercion complaints
can be handled through the NCCDB. We have long called for FMCSA to
change the name of this system, to something such as ``National Truck
Safety Hotline and Consumer Complaint Database,'' but FMCSA has
consistently rejected this suggestion without explanation.
Minimum Liability Insurance
According to the most recent federal research, the current required
minimum level of liability insurance for motor carriers covers damages
in 99.4% of crashes involving a CMV. If there were any other federal
regulation that covered over 99% of cases, it's hard to imagine that
there'd be any discussion of a need for a change.
Yet, there are members on this committee that want to increase the
minimum insurance level by over 500%, from the current level of
$750,000 to $5,000,000. This increase would cause insurance premiums to
skyrocket and would be absolutely devastating for small businesses.
It's unlikely that small carriers could afford this increase, and many
would be forced out of business. As a way to afford this increase, some
truckers may cut back on maintenance and repair costs, which
jeopardizes the safety of their operations.
There is simply no need for this increase. There is no evidence
that increasing insurance requirements will improve safety. There is no
data showing that the current levels fail to cover the costs of
crashes. In fact, the average crash costs only $18,000 in damages. This
Subcommittee and Congress should reject calls for increasing minimum
insurance requirements.
Autonomous Vehicles/Automated Driving Systems
Rampant speculation continues to grow regarding potential benefits
of autonomous driving technologies. This is in large part because there
is a complete lack of federal regulatory oversight on these
technologies and the companies working to develop them. Despite
unfounded forecasts and empty promises that automated vehicles will
lead to zero deaths, there continue to be real-world situations in
which automation has devastatingly failed. Unfortunately, current
voluntary reporting requirements leave truckers and the public in the
dark about the safety and reliability of autonomous technologies. OOIDA
is frequently asked what truckers think about the development of
autonomous technology and what it means for the future of their
profession. To be frank: there's not a whole lot we can say about how
the technology is performing or what exactly it means for truckers. We
can only presume these vehicles are not ready for safe deployment
without mandatory reporting on performance. OOIDA believes that any
process to advance automated technology should be met with mandatory
data transparency from manufacturers. This will help educate consumers,
the industry, and regulators about the actual reliability of autonomous
technology.
Over the last several years, DOT agencies have pursued respective
rulemakings to ``ensure'' the safe introduction of ADS-equipped CMVs
onto the nation's roadways. Many of the questions included in these
proposals remain hypothetical in nature and OOIDA has questioned why
DOT has chosen to focus on regulations that may or may not be necessary
depending how the technology performs. These regulatory proposals seem
destined to fail without more concrete data about how AVs will function
and their impact on the industry.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, many of today's regulations are excessive and lack
any connection to safety or are deliberately designed to inflict
unnecessary costs and burdens on operators, especially small
businesses, to reduce or eliminate competition. At their best, federal
regulations can help achieve worthy and complementary objectives:
promoting highway safety and supporting professional drivers and small
business truckers. Congress and DOT must better prioritize regulatory
reforms that clearly meet these important objectives.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Pugh. Ms. Osborne, you are
recognized.
TESTIMONY OF BETH OSBORNE, DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA
(T4AMERICA)
Ms. Osborne. Thank you, Chairman Crawford and Ranking
Member Norton, for inviting me to today's hearing. As a former
staffer for a T&I member, it is really fun to be here for once.
I am the director of Transportation for America. Our vision
is a transportation system that connects people to jobs and
essential services no matter how they travel, no matter a
person's financial means or their physical ability. My team
works with States and localities across the country that have
the same vision.
We analyze trends in the transportation system and current
investments, and we have consistently found a gap between what
the taxpayers are promised and what is delivered through the
surface transportation program. The current approach allows
agencies to prioritize expansion at the expense of repair,
permits roadway designs that have proven dangerous, and puts
people farther away from the places they need to go.
What is frustrating to me, who has been part of five
reauthorizations and is gearing up for my sixth, is that very
failure is often the rallying cry for more money to be poured
into the same programs. This is a country of such creativity
and innovation, yet we apply so little of it to the surface
transportation program. I want to see that change.
Congress has given transportation agencies very broad
latitude but has not provided new tools, clear goals, or
accountability to the taxpayer. For example, States and
metropolitan planning organizations are required to set targets
for the number and rate of roadway fatalities and serious
injuries, including a target for the number of nonmotorized
fatalities and serious injuries.
In our latest report on the danger that those walking face
on our roadways, ``Dangerous by Design,'' we found that 13
States are currently setting a target for more fatalities and
serious injuries than the year before. Even if they exceed that
elevated target, there is no real penalty.
There is another category it targets that Congress calls
``performance'' of the National Highway System, an undefined
and extremely broad term. U.S. DOT has included greenhouse gas
emissions as one of those performance targets. What happens if
a State misses their targets? Not a thing.
Some claim that under this rule, there will never be
another highway built or expanded. But in Colorado, they have a
more powerful regulation that requires projects that increase
emissions to be paired with projects that will counter that
increase. Guess what? They are building and expanding highways
in Colorado.
Also, interestingly, our research finds that greenhouse gas
emissions from transportation overwhelmingly come from urban
areas. More rural States are actually doing quite well.
In general, we should not be just setting targets at all
but also rewarding agencies for performing well and providing
greater direction and support for those failing to progress. On
individual projects, agencies make big promises, but rarely
have to look back and see whether or not the projects they have
built performed as intended. Imagine what we could learn and
improve if we did.
Back to safety. We have already heard the safety numbers, I
believe, from Ranking Member Larsen. But in 2022, 46,027 people
died in motor vehicle crashes compared to 32,782 in 2012, 10
years before. That is a trend that is not only awful, it is at
odds with our peer nations.
One reason for that is we have a one-size-fits-all approach
to designing our major roadways. We built the interstate system
to accommodate high-speed vehicle movement because we knew it
was impossible to do so safely on our surface roads due to
conflict: street parking, cross-streets, driveways, and people.
But over the last 7 years, we have brought interstate
speeds to many of our surface roads. Speed and conflict are a
dangerous combination. Even at the speed limit, speeds are
often too high for a driver to see and anticipate a conflict
and react. When a driver inevitably fails, we blame them. We
can certainly provide and prepare drivers more to behave safely
and penalize those that don't. But if we had better roadway
design, we wouldn't have to. Certainly, not as much.
And if Congress and the agencies funded by Congress
participated more in safer design of our system, the users of
it might not chafe as much at being regulated themselves. We
could also make personal vehicle designs safer, getting rid of
preposterous problems like big front blind spots. We all have a
role to play.
I know I sound negative, but it is because I know we can do
so much better. I hope we can talk about using guidance and
regulation in a way that would support better outcomes and more
accountability.
Thanks again for having me, and I look forward to hearing
your ideas and receiving your questions.
[Ms. Osborne's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Beth Osborne, Director, Transportation for
America (T4America)
Thank you, Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Norton for inviting
me to today's hearing. I am the director of Transportation for America,
the transportation arm of Smart Growth America. My team's mission is a
transportation system that connects people to jobs and essential
services by all modes of travel, no matter people's financial means or
physical ability. We do our work through direct technical assistance,
research and analysis of the existing transportation system, and policy
advocacy. In my role, I also manage the National Complete Streets
Coalition, an Arts & Culture in transportation program, and a
partnership with the University of Wisconsin's State Smart
Transportation Initiative.
My team is currently working with states and localities across the
country that share our goals. That work includes reviewing procedures,
standards, regulations and performance measures of state departments of
transportation, from Florida to Michigan, to modernize them and ensure
they are protective of all users. We also conduct trainings and assist
states and localities in using low-cost, quick-build demonstration
projects to test out new interventions for improving safety, most
recently in 10 communities in Alaska, California, Connecticut, and
Tennessee.
We analyze trends in the transportation system and the results of
our current investment approach to transportation. We use that
information to identify and advocate for needed policy changes. Our
analyses have found a sizable gap between what the taxpayers are
promised by their elected leaders and what is delivered through the
bipartisan surface transportation program: the current transportation
funding system allows states to prioritize expansion over maintaining
the roads they already have; utilize the same approach to roadway
design that has made America's roads the most deadly in the developed
world; and puts people farther away from the places they need to go,
stymying access to opportunity.
Every time Congress begins its efforts to reauthorize the surface
transportation program, we hear about the need to rebuild crumbling
roads and bridges, improve roadway safety, and save people time by
reducing congestion (as if there is no other way to do it). Eventually
Congress, on a bipartisan basis, puts substantially more money in the
same structure of programs that has existed since 1991, and that bill
is signed by presidents of both parties. Congress and the president
compliment themselves and talk about how more money in the same
programs that led to the current predicament will lead to different
results.
They don't. Five to seven years later, we start that process over,
pointing to the same problems that were supposed to be fixed or at
least improved by the last reauthorization. Our failure to address our
stated goals is pointed to as the reason why more money is needed for
the same programs--rinse and repeat--as if that's the best we can do
for the taxpayer.
I am old enough to have participated in five such cycles. I've
watched this cycle for longer than most people on this committee have
been in Congress, except Ranking Member Norton. It is frustrating
watching us enthusiastically spend hundreds of billions of dollars for
poor results and never consider we need to try a different tack.
Our safety results are abysmal. According to the National Safety
Council, roadway deaths decreased 2% in 2022--but that was following an
11% increase in 2021 and an 8%increase in 2020. In 2022, 46,027 people
died in motor-vehicle crashes compared to 46,980 in 2021 and 42,338 in
2020.
The United States has the most dangerous roads of all the developed
nations. According to the International Transport Forum, an
intergovernmental organization with 69 member countries from Albania to
Uzbekistan, between 2012 and 2022, road deaths increased by 1.5% in the
35 countries with validated data. But then they actually include this
sentence in their roadway safety report: ``If US data are excluded,
overall road deaths in IRTAD countries fell by 14%.'' The US is single-
handedly dragging the performance of the developed world down on
roadway safety.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Across those same countries, pedestrian fatalities decreased by
27.3%. But not in the United States. Our analysis of roadway danger for
those walking on American roadways based on data from the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, called Dangerous by Design,
found that pedestrian fatalities are up. In fact, there has been a 75
percent increase in the number of people struck and killed while
walking since 2010. Danger outside of a vehicle is getting consistently
worse: The share of all traffic deaths that were people outside of
vehicles hit the highest share in 40 years. Those 7,522 deaths are
roughly the equivalent to more than three Boeing 737s full of people
falling from the sky every month for a year. Because of how we design
our roads, danger for people walking goes up when driving is up and
when driving is down.
(The most dangerous Congressional Districts can be found here.
[https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/the-most-deadly-
congressional-districts/])
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
What about repairing our crumbling roads and bridges? The last time
we looked at the state of repair of our roads, we found that while more
money is being spent, it is not necessarily going to repair. In our
report with Taxpayers for Common Sense, Repair Priorities, we found
that states were spending as much on roadway expansion as repair and,
as a result, between 2009 and 2017, the percentage of the roads
nationwide in poor condition increased from 14 to 20 percent.
These investments in expansion don't just redirect funds away from
much-needed investments in repair; they continually grow our annual
spending needs, widening the gap. Every new lane-mile of road costs
approximately $24,000 per year to preserve in a state of good repair.
By expanding roads, we are borrowing against the future. But the
failure to invest in existing infrastructure and the decision to build
more roads we can't afford to maintain are held up as reasons to take
more money from the taxpayer (or increase the national debt).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Washington Post took a look at the issue in 2021 and found the
same trend continuing: ``Infrastructure plan calls for fixing the
nation's existing roads. Some states are still focused on expansion.''
Thankfully, they were able to get the Federal Highway Administration to
give them significantly more current data than they made available to
the public and to us. My organization is looking at the spending under
the IIJA and finding that these same spending trends continue into
today. We will release our full findings in September, but our
preliminary findings have already been made public.
We hear that the country must build more roads and expand roadways
in spite of our lack of willingness to pay to keep them up because of
the terrible congestion on our roadways. But our ``solution'' to
congestion does not work. The United States has spent decades and
hundreds of billions of dollars widening and building new highways. We
added 30,511 new freeway lane-miles of road in the largest 100
urbanized areas between 1993 and 2017, an increase of 42 percent. That
rate of freeway expansion significantly outstripped the 32 percent
growth in population in those regions over the same time period. Yet
this strategy has utterly failed to solve the problem at hand--delay is
up in those urbanized areas by a staggering 144 percent--as we show in
our report, The Congestion Con. Congestion is worse in all 100 cities,
whether the population has increased or decreased, regardless of how
much new roadway capacity was built.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
What we are doing makes travel more expensive in terms of the
actual cost of transportation and in terms of the amount of time needed
to travel. Our focus on more and more highways has pushed development
further out and spread it further apart. This makes trips longer so
that even if they are faster, it is at best, a wash. In an analysis
Transportation for America did with Third Way, we found household trips
for commuting and other necessary tasks in 2017 were significantly
longer on average than they were in 2001, 10 percent longer in urban
areas and 12 percent in rural areas.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
While rural trips have increased in length, rural travel per capita
has not--which means people in rural America are likely giving up some
trips. People have a finite budget for travel in terms of money and
time.
If you have come this far with me, you may be wondering what this
has to do with regulation. The point is that the federal spending and
what we get for it is not regulated nor is there much oversight. There
is very little transparency into where funding is allocated and there
is rarely a report on whether a project delivered any of the benefits
that were promised.
Just to analyze federal awards and what they're being spent on
without a massive team, my team had to use AI to get through the
federal spending information and, even then, we found that some states'
reporting on their spending was very hard to understand. State
reporting on their own spending is often even harder to parse.
Yet when the Federal Highway Administrator writes an unenforceable
internal memo suggesting that the agency encourage states to use their
authority to repair existing infrastructure and reduce emissions, some
on Capitol Hill get very, very upset. If USDOT includes in their
performance management regulation that states must set targets to
reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (something most of them claim
will happen in their environmental documents for individual projects),
there is a lawsuit fighting it. This is in spite of the fact that there
is no penalty for failing to hit a target the states set for
themselves.
Actually, that is the case across the board. States get the same
amount of money if they produce great results or terrible results,
whether they hit their targets or not. As we point out in Dangerous by
Design, 13 states have set targets for more people to be killed or
injured while walking. There is no penalty for this, even if they
exceed their elevated targets.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Where USDOT and FHWA do regulate, it often stifles innovation and
stands in the way of efficiency, quality of life, public health, and
the economy. And yet, this gets little-to-no attention on Capitol Hill.
When we work with our partners at the state and local level, the street
design engineers regularly cite federal rules and standards as the
reason they cannot narrow lane widths, add color in the roadway, or
slow traffic speeds. The current default approach to determining
whether a new pedestrian crossing should be added requires a certain
number of people to jaywalk to prove demand. If pedestrians proving the
need for a crossing are hit, they will likely get blamed for
jaywalking. It would be like requiring people to swim across a river to
justify a bridge and then blaming people who drown or need a rescue.
This strange relationship with safety can be seen everywhere.
Elected leaders and those running transportation agencies love to say
that safety is their highest priority. We talk about the safe systems
approach, which requires education, enforcement, and design changes.
Design change should be at the top of that list. However, just
designing the roadway to make going the speed limit feel most
comfortable is hard to do. We have standards that insist on adding
wiggle room in case people exceed the speed limit, which is exactly
what they do when that wiggle room is provided. Wider lanes and roads
with building set back sends a strong message for drivers to go faster.
Two interesting things in this space. First, our procedure for
designing roadways and speed limits results in raising speed limits if
enough people speed. So, if we design the roadway for people who might
speed and they do, we will raise the speed limit for them. Second,
while this design is considered auto-centric, it is actually quite
hostile to drivers, and we all know it on some level. Everyone knows of
roads that feel like you should be able to drive faster than the speed
limit allows, We even have a term for that: a speed trap.
If we designed our roadways to get the behavior we wanted, we would
not need as much education on how to use them or rely as heavily on
enforcement. Instead of addressing design failures, we blame drivers
and pedestrians for their behavior--drivers for going above the speed
limit but adhering to the design speed of the roadway, and pedestrians
for crossing where there is no marked crossing because they haven't
crossed enough there to prove the need for one.
Congress and USDOT have relied more heavily on regulating vehicle
design, commercial drivers, and supporting police enforcement. There is
a group that chafes at all of these options. Each group will tell us to
trust roadway designers, vehicle designers, and drivers. That is what
we have been doing. That's why our results are so bad, why we are being
shown up by Chile, Serbia, and Hungary.
If safety is a priority (not even the top priority) then everyone
is going to have to be a part of it, and that will mean having some
constraints and inconveniences. DOTs will need to update roadway design
approaches, vehicle manufacturers will have to design safer vehicles
and drivers will have to be more attentive and drive more slowly. That
means, we cannot just say why one idea is wrong. We need to talk about
what we are going to do to get better results for the taxpayer and
traveling public.
I thank you for your time and look forward to the committee
discussion and questions.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Ms. Osborne.
Prior to beginning Member questioning, I would like to make
our witness panel aware that votes are anticipated to be called
at 10:30 a.m. this morning. If this occurs, the subcommittee
may enter into a brief recess. However, witnesses should be
prepared to resume the hearing when the subcommittee
reconvenes.
Again, thank you all for your testimony. I will now turn to
questions from the panel. I recognize myself to begin.
Mr. Duit, in your written testimony, you outlined the
American Road & Transportation Builders Association's
opposition to the Federal Highway Administration's final rule
to create a greenhouse gas performance measure. In addition to
citing the administration's lack of statutory authority to
promulgate such a regulation, your testimony says, quote,
``This rule could impinge on State flexibility to select
projects,'' end quote.
Could you expand on that and explain to this subcommittee
what that means and what's at stake here?
Mr. Duit. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chairman Crawford.
The rule requires State and local agencies to plan projects
that meet the intended greenhouse gas goals or, at a minimum,
contribute to declining greenhouse gas targets. This means that
States and other transportation agencies may need to prioritize
certain types of projects over others if they do not align with
the prescribed GHG reduction targets.
The concern is that this could lead to a misallocation of
resources, hinder State-specific transportation needs, and
undermine the flexibility that States have traditionally
enjoyed in selecting and prioritizing transportation projects.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Duit. As cochair of the
Congressional Steel Caucus, it is important to me that this
country has strong Buy America standards in place and supports
the domestic production of steel as well as other construction
materials. The Buy Clean initiative encourages manufacturers to
adopt cleaner, low-carbon processes, and publish environmental
product declarations or EPDs.
Mr. Bell, I have heard from constituents that there is
confusion surrounding the Department's rollout of its low-
carbon transportation materials program and no final decision
on what the material requirements would be.
Does the SMA have concerns with that program?
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Congressman Crawford, and we
appreciate your leadership and support of the steel industry.
Yes. The SMA has serious problems with it because it is not
clear as to where we are going to end up here. You have one
approach that is being adopted by the General Services
Administration, and then you have Federal Highway that, to
their credit, is taking a more collaborative approach and
working with industry and other subject matter experts to
determine what their Buy Clean policy will be.
The fact of the matter is, there should be existing EPDs
for various product categories. And if you have the right EPD,
it will show you what the emissions is and whether the steel is
clean or not.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Bell. I will yield the balance
of my time and recognize Ranking Member Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pugh, in your testimony, you expressed your strong
support for a bipartisan bill that I sponsored with Congressman
Ezell. H.R. 8505, the Household Goods Shipping Consumer
Protection Act, restores the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration's authority to issue civil penalties against bad
actors and enhances registration criteria.
How would this bill benefit small-business truckers and
root out fraudulent actors in the freight industry?
Mr. Pugh. Yes. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Yes. This would be very helpful to our industry. Small-
business carriers, it is almost at a crisis level now with
brokers and fraud. And what we can see from this is, it would
give FMCSA some teeth to go after these bad actors and these
fraudsters, because that is one thing that they are lacking.
This is the first step to give it.
Secondly, motor carriers forever have been required to have
a physical address. These fraudsters and these brokers have not
been. This will make brokers and these folks have to have a
physical address, which every one of my members that I have
seen that has gotten hit with one of these fraudsters has been
at like a UPS box or some sort of fake mailbox or something
like that.
We firmly believe that some of this stuff is even coming
from other countries across the globe. So, yes, this is a very
good bill, and we much appreciate your support in bringing this
forward to help our members. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. Ms. Osborne, far too many people are
dying on our roadways. Your testimony highlights that the
United States has the worst road safety statistics compared to
every other developed nation.
How do the regulations governing road design and traffic
control limit our ability to build safer and more accessible
roads?
Ms. Osborne. I appreciate that question. I will start by
stealing from my friend and colleague at Strong Towns, Chuck
Marohn, who wrote a book I highly recommend called,
``Confessions of a Recovering Engineer,'' who points out that
we try to make our roadways do everything, and, therefore, they
kind of do everything poorly.
If we want a roadway to accommodate high-speed travel by
vehicles, we need to regulate all points of entrance and exit.
We need to clear that roadway of vulnerable users and of
development. There shouldn't be cross-roads, there shouldn't be
parking, there shouldn't be driveways.
If we want that roadway to be servicing of local businesses
and neighborhoods, there are going to be lots of conflict
points and, therefore, speeds need to be slow.
We try to do a hybrid of the two where we have high speed
and conflict, and that leads to deadly conflict and
consequences.
We also should set speed limits based on the speed we want
to see and design the roadway accordingly rather than the way
we do it now, which is we provide wiggle room so that people,
if they do speed, can more safely do so, meaning that if they
lose control of their vehicle, that they have wiggle room.
That added space encourages speeding. And then when enough
people speed, we raise the speed limit. That is backwards.
And while there has been recent flexibility for States and
transportation agencies to do something different, there has
been no guidance. So, you can choose the traditional way where
there is a lot of guidance, or you can make things up on your
own. That is just not the right way to go about creating safe
design.
Finally, I will say we need to reward those that make
progress in safety and manage those who are not doing well, set
more limitations on how they spend their dollars and make them
be more accountable for it. We definitely should not spend $50
billion a year for these bad results.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Osborne, your testimony also discusses the
lack of accountability and transparency in the Federal Highway
program. You note that even nonbinding information-gathering
efforts are fought in the courts and in the Congress.
Can you discuss the need for greater accountability and
transparency and how States spend taxpayer dollars?
Ms. Osborne. Yes. I will just say quickly that we have done
polling that shows a break in people's faith in what the
surface transportation program produces, and that is because of
past failures and lack of accountability. And if we want to be
able to put more money into this program, we are going to have
to close that gap.
Mr. Crawford. The gentlewoman's time has expired. The
gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I wanted to
take just a couple minutes of my time.
Mr. Bell, in your statements you say the steel industry is
a wonderful and glorious industry that has built careers,
companies, communities, cities, and even civilizations.
You still agree with that statement?
Mr. Bell. Yes.
Mr. Stauber. Further down in that same paragraph, you say,
``modernization and further decarbonization of America's steel
industry, which is already the cleanest in the world.''
Do you still agree with that statement?
Mr. Bell. Yes.
Mr. Stauber. Okay. Do you know which district I represent
in Minnesota?
Mr. Bell. Yes. You are in the Iron Range, aren't you,
Congressman Stauber?
Mr. Stauber. I am. I am. Mr. Bell, I am extremely offended
at your comments here today in your written statements. Trying
to reduce the steelmaking of the blast furnaces. I can assure
you, if we had a representative of U.S. Steel in Cleveland-
Cliffs, they would disagree with you vehemently.
We built communities on the Iron Range. Our steelmaking,
our mines, are who we are and our way of life. For you to come
to our Nation's Capital and offend the people that I represent,
Congressman James Oberstar, the transportation director, is
rolling over in his grave right now because you are attacking
our steel industry in northeastern Minnesota.
Our ports depend on it. We support the Soo locks. Other
cities depend on it. Our steel--we need to all--we need to
support, Mr. Bell, all domestic-making steel. Do not separate
us. China is our adversary in steel, and you know that.
The recycled steel that you support, do you use any
Chinese-made recycled steel?
Mr. Bell. No.
Mr. Stauber. Are you sure?
Mr. Bell. Yes.
Mr. Stauber. One hundred percent?
Mr. Bell. Yes.
Mr. Stauber. One hundred percent American? Well, good for
you. I am not sure I believe that, because China has been
trying to take us down for a long, long time. They have tried
to shut the Iron Range down for a long, long time.
All domestic steel we must support. U.S. Steel at
Cleveland-Cliffs is our backbone of northeastern Minnesota.
They support thousands of jobs, hundreds of secondary jobs,
$90,000- to $100,000-a-year jobs in our steelmaking industry.
Please do not come to the United States Capitol and attack our
way of life and attack our steel industry.
The Iron Range helped us win two world wars. We made the
steel that helped build America and continue to build America.
I will not take a back seat when we talk about steel and we
talk about mining.
I sit here every single week to have friends on the other
side of the aisle try to take away our mining and our way of
life. I will not let that happen. Again, we must support all
domestic-made steel, and that includes recycling that you
support. And I do, too.
Please do not allow this infighting. China is an adversary.
They are trying to dump cheap steel in this country. We need to
keep the tariffs on, and I know you support that. Would you
please, please support all domestic-making steel. That means on
the Iron Range of Minnesota. That is our way of life. Our
communities, our jobs, our families, as you say. Our
communities, our cities, our civilizations, as you say. It is
our way of life. We do it better than anybody.
The jobs and opportunities that mining present in
northeastern Minnesota are second to none, and I will share
this with you in my last few minutes. Minnesota has the most
mineral wealth of any State in this Nation with the exception
of Alaska. And it is because of our Iron Range, and we have now
found the biggest copper nickel find in the world.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Duit, you note in your testimony that nearly 43,000 new
construction industry jobs have been added since 2021.
Are you making the point that those are tied to the BIL?
Mr. Duit. Yes, sir.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes, they are. And that States
have advanced at least one Federal-aid highway and bridge
project in nearly every county across the country as well. That
is your testimony, and that is a result of the BIL?
Mr. Duit. Yes, sir.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. And the value--you didn't testify
to this, but it is in your written--the value of State and
local government projects breaking ground was up year to year,
27 percent in 2022 and another 9 percent in 2023. And that is
as a result of the BIL?
Mr. Duit. Yes, sir.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Sure. Great. I just want to
underscore the point that this discussion about regulations is
one thing, but there is another part of the truth here, is that
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has increased investment in
roads, bridges, highways, construction, and it has increased
jobs in that construction. And I say that one of the reasons we
have 4 percent unemployment or lower for the single longest
stretch since probably my life is, in part, because of the
investments in the BIL, and I would like to keep it going.
So, we have got a chance to do that next year, or the next
couple years, when we reauthorize it. So, you are making a
great case for us to do that as we move forward, and I just--I
want to thank you for that.
I want to move to Ms. Osborne. Since 2012, Congress has
focused the Federal Highway program on outcomes and set goals,
quote, to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities
and serious injuries on all public roads and to, quote, enhance
the performance of the transportation system while protecting
and enhancing the natural environment. That is since 2012. That
is according to law directly.
But despite that investment and this renewed focus, traffic
fatalities are, in fact, up; carbon pollution is, in fact, up;
roadway congestion is, in fact, up.
So, in your view, how has the administration's regulatory
agenda supported those goals, or not, for that matter?
Ms. Osborne. Thank you for the question.
Congress has not given the administration a lot of
authority to steer spending more towards those goals or not.
There is really little that the administration could do to
orient particularly formula dollars towards those goals. They
could use competitive grants even to a greater extent than they
do now to do so reward those who are really succeeding in
meeting those goals and steer spending more into the areas that
some agencies are struggling with. Like, maybe an agency that
is really struggling with their safety numbers, competitive
grants would only be open for safety projects from that agency.
Many of the rules we are talking about today are meant to
address safety. We are just trying to figure out how to do that
well, and that is the right conversation to have with the
practitioners to get a sense of what the real-world impact of
them would be.
There is a lot we could do in light-duty vehicle design. We
are seeing a larger and larger problem with the fact that
drivers cannot see the road in front of them based on the way
trucks are designed. Some of the solutions discussed is putting
screens in cars so that people would have to take their eyes
off the road to see the road in front of them. We would like to
see a more practical and logical solution to that problem.
And we could help States modernize the way they approach
transportation and, particularly, performance management. If
you look back at the discussion in the 1950s when we were
starting the Federal program, most people wanted to evaluate
the effectiveness of the system based on whether or not people
could reach their destinations no matter how they traveled, but
especially on the newly built roadway system. And we just
didn't have the statistics and the data, the technology to do
that at the time. Now we have it, and we all carry it in our
pockets in smart phones. We have cloud computing that can allow
that kind of technology to measure hundreds of thousands of
trips in just a couple of hours and really understand how every
kind of investment impacts people's access, whether it is
reducing congestion, improving transit service, creating more
direct vehicle or bike-ped connections, and bringing the
destinations people need closer to where they live.
Seeing something like that could be really transformative.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thanks. I appreciate it. Before I
yield back, I just want to make a note that we had a hearing a
couple weeks ago regarding the use of formula grants and
competitive grant and the desire from some to have fewer
competitive grants. Everyone is for roadway safety--I don't
question that at all--but it does seem you are making somewhat
of a case, if we just leave it to formula grants only, there is
no guarantee investment will be made in roadway safety as
opposed to if we had the competitive grants for roadway safety,
we could better encourage the national policy in investment and
infrastructure that actually takes into account safety.
Ms. Osborne. It is just one of the few places where reward
is possible.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thanks. I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. Mr. Yakym.
Mr. Yakym. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of
our witnesses for being here today.
I am glad we are continuing our strong oversight of the
Department of Transportation, an agency charged with
administrating over $1 trillion of taxpayer money that is
supposed to be designed to shore up our Nation's
infrastructure. However, it seems that far too often, a
cavernous bureaucracy at DOT headquarters bogs down decisions
in redtape, distracts itself with issues outside of its
mandate, and they ultimately allow important investments to be
eroded away by inflation.
I have heard plenty of concerns from constituent
stakeholders frustrated by confusing rules, inconsistent grant
opportunity announcements, complex applications, and delays in
securing grant agreements. One issue I have heard from
construction companies in my district is uncertainty around
Build America, Buy America requirements. I support Buy America
where possible, but it seems like it is becoming a bureaucratic
mess.
For example, for 2 years in a row, a local road-striping
company in my district has come in to talk about uncertainty
over how the Federal Government treats the reflective glass
beads that are laid on top of paint. OMB ruled that the beads
are construction material, while the paint is a manufactured
product.
If they are premixed before arriving at the job site, it is
considered a manufactured product. But they are seldom premixed
because it is more time-consuming, more expensive, and it
doesn't work in all situations. That is not to mention that
different States are applying classifications and documentation
requirements differently as well.
There are easy fixes for all of this. For example, like
getting the administration out of the weeds and out of this
bureaucratic mess. But, like I said, the constituent company
has come in 2 years in a row worried about this issue. That
says to me to no one at DOT is in a position to fix this, and
they don't seem to be in a hurry to do so.
It seems like the Federal Government is all too content to
micromanage these products and create all sorts of headaches
for small businesses that are just trying to paint the lane
markings on the roads. And that keeps the driving public unsafe
during times of day in all weather conditions.
Mr. Duit, can you speak to some of the issues you are
seeing with the Biden-Harris administration stewardship of the
Build America, Buy America requirements?
Mr. Duit. Yes, sir. Thank you, Representative.
First of all, to reiterate, ARTBA fully supports Buy
America. The problem is that, in the short term, some items are
not made in the U.S. in adequate amounts or they might be
specialty items only made in foreign countries for now. While
U.S. manufacturing catches up, we have to pay a premium for
whatever U.S.-made inventory is available, and that is on top
of inflation.
If we can't find it, there needs to be a waiver request.
Waivers can take a long time for approval, if they get approved
at all. Meanwhile, we may have to delay or interrupt work on
the project to get the issue resolved.
There are dozens of different items considered to be
manufactured products. When we think of highway and bridge
projects, we usually think of concrete, asphalt, steel, and so
forth. But these days, we are using many electronic items,
electrical, mechanical units, pumps, lifts, and so on. Think
about the ITS systems for rest areas, traffic operation
centers, and everything that goes into them.
FHWA is proposing that more than 55 percent of a
manufactured product needs to be made in the USA. The problem
is that someone like my company, as a contractor, would have to
inventory all of the components that make up the manufactured
product and certify where they are made. The manufacturer may
not have that information.
One example is a generator. Literally, hundreds of small
inexpensive components in there. Someone needs to go through
all of those parts, figure out what they are worth and where
they were made. The manufacturer's representative selling the
generator may not have that information. If the contractor
demands it, the manufacturer's rep will just sell the generator
to someone else.
Mr. Yakym. Thank you, Mr. Duit. In closing here, I do want
to also point out, as my time is expiring, that in terms of
some of the grant agreement delays as well, according to the
Department of Transportation's own figures, there are only 148
out of 415 or 35 percent of RAISE grants agreements in place
for awards that were awarded between fiscal years 2021 and
2023, and it is causing projects to drown in redtape, die on
the vine, and being eaten away by inflation.
And so, I certainly call on the Department of
Transportation to get these grant agreements in place so we can
get the money out the door and these projects in place.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I do yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bell, you have been subjected to a beat-down of
proportions that I have not seen as a Member of Congress in the
last 18 years, and you didn't even have a chance to defend
yourself. You were beaten down like a pinata. And so, I feel
kind of badly about that.
And it seems like you were beat down because of your
representation of the Steel Manufacturers Association, which in
your testimony, you talked about the two ways of production of
steel, one being a traditional blast furnace, basic oxygen
furnace production method, which is centuries old, extractive,
coal-based, high emissions. That is the old way of making
steel. And the Steel Manufacturers Association produces steel
via a cleaner method.
And I suppose it was the extraction that you advocate
against in your testimony, with the admonition that we should
only have one standard, one emissions standard as opposed to
two emissions standards. The one that you favor is the one that
is cleaner and better for our environment.
Would you like to explain a little bit about why that
method is best as we move forward in funding initiatives to
move our country away from dirty energy and into a more cleaner
situation?
Mr. Bell. Sure. Thank you, Congressman Johnson.
The EAF approach to steelmaking embraces the circular
economy. What does that mean? That we use recycled steel to
make new steel. That means we also use electricity from an
energy grid that gets greener and greener every year. And as a
result of that, we have a lower emissions profile than steel
made the traditional route.
But for the purpose of this hearing, what is important to
note, that when it comes to Federal Highway Administration and
General Services Administration infrastructure projects, the
integrated blast furnace producers do not make the products you
need for Federal Highway and GSA projects. They don't make
them. EAFs make 99 percent of those products that you use.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, if I may interrupt you here
again and again apologize that you had to suffer such a beat-
down, but I hope you feel better about being able to explain a
little bit about why you are here and why you are advocating
for your position.
Mr. Bell. And I appreciate that opportunity. And, by the
way, Mr. Stauber is a huge advocate for the steel industry.
And, quite frankly, both integrated producers and EAF producers
are the ones that are leading the way globally in cleaner steel
production.
But, again, for the purpose of this hearing, Federal
Highway infrastructure projects, the products that are needed
to do those are not made by integrated producers. So, the
reason we need a single standard is so it is easy to follow.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Okay. All right. I may disagree
with you on the single standard concept, but maybe one of my
fellow colleagues will allow you to talk more about that.
I want to get to Ms. Osborne.
Ms. Osborne, considering the alarming statistic of
approximately 42,795 road fatalities in the U.S. in 2022, with
12,151 of those attributed to speeding, the Department of
Transportation has highlighted the crucial need for safer
speeds in its national roadway safety strategy.
Could you elaborate on how technologies like automatic
emergency braking systems can contribute to promoting safer
driving speeds and reducing speed-related fatalities?
Ms. Osborne. I appreciate your question and do want to
point out that some of the things we don't even look at is that
even going the speed limit is often an unsafe speed. And we
don't determine which crashes are caused by speed that actually
meet or are under the speed limit, even though that is part of
the danger as well.
We certainly need to look at ways to get people to comply
with speed limits that are often set higher than they should
be, but we should be also looking to make it more natural for
people to behave the way we want them to by better roadway
design. That just leads to drivers going the safer speed.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Ms. Maloy.
Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are here talking about regulation in the transportation
industry and building things. And we are a country that used to
innovate and build things and now we just regulate.
Mr. Pugh, I am going to start with you. You said that long-
haul trucking is one of the most heavily regulated industries
in the country. You also said that truckers are growing
frustrated with this administration and all the regulations.
If we have a different administration and we can change
regulations, what would long-haul truckers like to see stripped
out? I think in a post-Chevron world, we are going to be in a
situation where Congress is making more of these decisions and
hopefully unelected bureaucrats are making fewer of the
decisions.
And you have our ear right now. What would you want
Congress to know?
Mr. Pugh. I think first and foremost would be the speed
limiter rule that has been floated around for the last couple
years. Truckers already are way under pressure with hours of
service, because they are regulated, of course, by the amount
of time they can drive and the amount of time they are supposed
to take a break.
So, if you add speed limiters into this--and, of course,
drivers are paid by piecework. So, when you add speed limiters
into this, this is just putting more pressure on drivers. It
has also been proven that inexperienced drivers and newer
drivers feel this pressure and oftentimes speed in places that
they probably shouldn't be speeding, two-lane roads and
construction and stuff like that. So, that is probably the
first thing.
Flexibility, more flexibility in hours of service would be
very helpful; and also an elimination of a rule, and that is
the elimination of the overtime exemption for driver pay,
because that was put in in 1938. I think it is a little dated.
Truckers should be paid for all the time that they work.
They give away 20, 30 hours a week plus. Probably that would do
better at managing speeds and a lot of other safety-related
things that we talk about here and rules that we try to make.
But a lot of these things we don't like to do because they are
hard. So, thank you.
Ms. Maloy. Thank you.
Mr. Duit, same question: What regulations should we be
looking at if Congress is making these decisions and not
agencies?
Mr. Duit. Thank you, Representative. Congress, including
this subcommittee, has done a great job conducting oversight of
the infrastructure law so far. But as we are halfway through
it, I encourage you to keep up the law as implemented and make
sure it is doing everything that it is intended to do.
Anything that we can do, contractors in general, we like
the flexibility. Anything that we can have that gives us
flexibility, gives the States flexibility, lets us do things in
conjunction with the owner certainly is always a benefit to
anything that we can do.
Ms. Maloy. Thank you.
Mr. Bell, same question: If Congress is making these rules
instead of agencies, what do you need us to know?
Mr. Bell. I've got to tell you at the SMA, we have a
preference for regulatory certainty over regulatory overreach.
And we really do believe that anything that Congress does needs
to be followed and not circumvented by regulatory frameworks.
Ms. Maloy. I agree.
All right. Ms. Osborne, you have had the most time to think
about it.
Ms. Osborne. Thank you. I would love to see a reduction of
some of the regulations on more innovative roadway designs.
When we work with States and local agencies, particularly on
attempting more innovative quick build projects to try new
interventions, they run into antiquated standards in both the
Green Book and in the MUTCD that make it hard to try new
things.
We regularly hear from roadway design engineers that they
would like to do things like narrow lanes in order to make
drivers know that is an area they should be going a little more
slowly in.
But they have to go through very elaborate and long
exceptions processes, which slows down their projects and
raises the cost of them. And then that is held against the
engineers in their performance reviews.
So, I would like to make it easier for them to do things
that get the results that we want and deregulate some of those
designs.
Ms. Maloy. Thank you. I am about out of time. I just want
to wrap up by saying that I am looking forward to being in a
different regulatory framework where we can go back and look at
some of these regulations that may have been there since the
thirties that don't make sense anymore.
So, I appreciate your time, appreciate you answering my
questions.
And I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentlewoman yields.
Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Chair, Ranking Member,
all of our witnesses.
We all share the goal of making our highways and transit
safer, more efficient, and more accessible. I am glad to see
that the Department of Transportation has made progress toward
these goals in rulemakings, but there is plenty of work to do
in the upcoming surface reauthorization bill.
Before I get into my questioning, I want to mention one
such topic, which is the increasing number of truck crashes and
fatalities. There has been a 49-percent increase in truck crash
fatalities over the last 10 years, while it is true,
thankfully, that in fatalities this is a small percent of a
larger number.
FMCSA's most recent data shows over half a million truck
crashes in 2021. Even though a small percentage resulted in
deaths, that still amounts to over 5,000 deaths per year.
To those who contend that our insurance minimums do not
need to be raised because only a small percentage of cases
exceed the minimum, I would like to ask you to tell 5,000
families who have lost loved ones or sustained lifelong
disabilities that they deserve to live in debt because they are
part of a statistical minority.
On that note, I would like to reiterate a point Ms. Osborne
made in her testimony about the upcoming surface
reauthorization bill, that we cannot continue to fund the same
systems and expect different outcomes.
Ms. Osborne, we are all aware of the 80/20 split that
directs the majority of funding towards our highways over our
transit systems. But as many transit agencies reach fiscal
cliffs and highway congestion continues to worsen despite
highway-widening projects, it is clear that deprioritizing
transit isn't working well for anyone.
Question: How could transit parity improve these issues,
and what can be done by Congress to address transit parity?
Ms. Osborne. I appreciate the question. We have spent the
last 70-plus years building out a strong and integrated highway
system, but we have not put the same attention into the other
modes of travel.
One of our priorities is to invest in the rest of the
system, to put the same level of focus on building out a strong
transit system, passenger rail system, freight rail system and
bike-ped system.
Putting more funding towards that effort is important, and
especially as we basically busted the trust fund since so
little of the trust fund is paid for by user fee and really
isn't a trust fund anymore. The old rules about who is paying
in and where the money should go hasn't been the case really
since 2009, and it is time to update our priorities there.
I would also like to see not just on the transit system but
on the roadway system, something I am hearing repeatedly from
folks on the ground is that this program needs to be a part of
the operations and maintenance of the overall system so that we
can guarantee we get the most efficient outcomes of our
investments.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you. Investing in transit
will help mitigate climate change by reducing gashouse
emissions.
How does the FHWA greenhouse gas rule equip States to
reduce carbon emissions, and why is it important for
communities that experience disproportionate highway pollution?
You have got about a minute.
Ms. Osborne. It is important to provide more sunshine into
what agencies' intentions are and to give us a barometer to
measure them by. We should not oversell it. It is just a
sunshine law. Agencies set their own targets, and if they miss
them, there is really no penalty for it.
But at the same time, we need not be overwrought about the
damage it will do or how it will impact investments. In fact,
if you look at most transportation agencies' environmental
documents, benefit-cost analyses, their models show that
expansion of highways will reduce emissions.
I don't think their models are very accurate, and we don't
really test them or look back to see if they are correct. But,
considering the fact that they claim it is going to be great
for emissions, I am not sure why they are so concerned about
then measuring them.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you so much. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. Mr. Nehls.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pugh, good to see you. You have been in front of this
committee before talking about some of the negative
consequences of the speed limiter, this mandate. To remind the
colleagues here, the DOT is considering limiting every single
truck on the road to 60 miles an hour regardless, regardless of
what the posted speed limit is.
In your experience, you've got a lot of experience behind
the wheel of a big truck, right? Do you believe this mandate
would actually reduce speeding on our roads or do you think
that DOT is ignoring the unintended consequences of this
rulemaking?
Mr. Pugh. No, I don't believe it is going to reduce--it
will reduce speeding maybe on the interstate highways, but it
is not--like I said earlier, more inexperienced newer drivers--
and, unfortunately, we have this churning all the time in
trucking.
When new people are coming in, it will cause them--and we
have seen this. Motor carriers use these things now as a driver
management tool, fuel management tool. If you look at the data,
they are still getting speeding tickets----
Mr. Nehls [interposing]. Right.
Mr. Pugh [continuing]. Speeding on the interstate. So, it
is probably a two-lane road or a work zone.
Mr. Nehls. And what does the safety data tell us about the
risk for crashes when you have trucks that are--now we are
forcing them, we are forcing them to travel below the posted
speed limit or slower than the flow of traffic. What does the
data say?
Mr. Pugh. There is plenty of data out there to show. But if
there is a 10-mile-per-hour differential in speeds between
traffic, that creates 227 percent more interactions between
cars and trucks, which interactions is where we have accidents.
Mr. Nehls. Aside from the safety concerns you related, what
does this do to our Nation's supply chains? How would that
affect it?
Mr. Pugh. Well, it is going to slow our supply chain down.
It is actually going to have a reverse effect with congestion,
because we are going to need more trucks to haul the same
amount of freight that we are hauling now.
And with that being said, that is going to put more trucks
on the highway which will be traveling 10 miles per hour below
the speed limit or more in different sectors, which will again
cause more congestion and more accidents.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you.
Mr. Duit, share with us some of your members' experiences
with obtaining Build America, Buy America waivers. In my State,
there is a good example. In my State, we applied for two BABA
waivers the end of January, and we still are awaiting approval.
We haven't heard anything.
How are the other States dealing with this with the DOTs?
How do they deal with some of this?
Mr. Duit. I would have to check to get a more--a better
answer for all the other States, but I think my recollection--
what I am understanding is I think everybody is having similar
issues with regard to how it is being interpreted.
I mean, if you look at this--on the Buy America, this is an
example from Florida [indicating a diagram]. This is one of our
members, that this is a generator, a project that he had. He
was required to go through, and they wanted to understand where
every single part in this generator was made, how much it cost
and then how that fits within the system.
I think things like that are just--there has to be some
common sense applied I think would make the most sense on
something like that.
Mr. Nehls. I agree. We have to stop the silliness. We
really, really do.
I yield back, sir.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mrs. Sykes.
Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Chairman Crawford and
Ranking Member Norton, for holding this hearing today. Grateful
to be able to continue to talk about the transformative impacts
of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and how we are
implementing it with great administrative--sometimes great and
sometimes not so great.
One thing I would like to talk about as a member of this
committee. Ohio, we call ourselves the heart of it all. You can
get to most of the country and Canada within an 8-hour drive,
but we are also always concerned about the fact whether people
are able to travel in and out of our State safely and want to
just make sure as we are talking about these administrative
rules, we are keeping safety in mind.
If people are not able to make it in and out of my State as
they are traveling through--commerce, for a vacation, for
leisure--we really are not doing something correct.
But I do want to direct our attention elsewhere for my
questions and specifically around some workforce conversations.
So, following the enactment of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, Transportation for America released an
article highlighting the need for workforce development as our
Nation and our transit systems recovered from the COVID
pandemic and the role that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
has played in the process.
One of those programs is the low- and no-emission and bus
facilities program. And among the requirements, the no-low
program requires that grantees spend 5 percent of the award
money on workforce development training, including
apprenticeships and other labor-management training programs.
So, Ms. Osborne, as you have seen these grant programs such
as this one improve our Nation's workforce--or, how have you
seen it, and what can we do to make it better if it is not
already working at the top of its ability?
Ms. Osborne. Thank you for your question. There is greater
flexibility in the utilization of Federal funds for workforce
development than I think a lot of agencies are aware. There is
a lot more we can do to not just show them how they might
utilize that flexibility but some of the most effective ways to
do so.
I think we can do a lot more to share workforce development
successes across the country rather than have everyone trying
to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, in every place. But one
thing we are doing now is analyzing the spending to date across
the board, in terms of IIJA's spending, to get a better sense
of what we have gotten for expenditures.
Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Ms. Osborne.
And if you could elaborate a little bit more about some of
the recommendations that you have to improve this so that we
can have that information and perhaps act on it.
Ms. Osborne. I am certainly happy to share any lessons we
learn in doing analysis, particularly with regard to workforce.
We don't have any particular recommendations on that today. But
as we finish our analysis, I would be happy to work with you
going forward.
Mrs. Sykes. Thank you very much.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentlewoman yields.
Mr. Webster.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my
question is maybe for Mr. Bell.
The idea of using lower carbon products in the
transportation arena is something that is happening, I guess.
And I am wondering are these products tested for their
longevity in kind of the wear and tear of transportation in
actual existence when they get incorporated into some job or
something? Are they checked for that, do you know, or tested
out, as far as how well they will endure the rigors of a
construction project?
Mr. Bell. Yes, Congressman, they are. And they are given
information through the environmental product declaration on
emissions, and then mill test certificates in terms of their
strength and functionality.
Mr. Webster of Florida. So, do you believe that other
items, like glass or concrete or something like that, do they
stand up to the rigors of that as well as it does for steel or
some other product?
Mr. Bell. I can really speak only to steel. But one thing
that we do know in terms of emissions, glass and concrete and
other commodities don't have a dual standard to measure their
emissions. But in terms of their strength, I can't speak to
that.
Mr. Webster of Florida. So, do you know--can you kind of
just summarize the impact of adding these items into the mix,
something that produces a lower carbon footprint, what that
entails? Can you elaborate on that?
Mr. Bell. Well, I do know that if you measure the embodied
carbon emissions of all commodities that are used in Federal
Highway infrastructure projects, I think that that will be a
good thing, because I think that way you will be able to build
these projects with the best carbon footprint possible.
Mr. Webster of Florida. But do you have kind of an idea of
which--I mean, as far as you don't just look at that input. You
also look at the longevity and endurance and so forth, other
things.
Are there some tests that kind of prove out what is the
sort of a number for that which includes all those things?
Mr. Bell. I am not aware of that. I can speak specifically
to steel and I know that they are; but for the other
commodities such as glass and concrete, I am not sure.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Do you think that that would be a
good thing to have before we step out into an unknown, an
unknown usage of products until we find out what the longevity
of those products would be?
Mr. Bell. I think it would be good, because it would
improve our environmental footprint and safety. But as long as
it can be done in a way that is not burdensome and that doesn't
hinder free markets and follows legislation, I think we would
be in good shape.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Do you think there should be some
kind of not exemption but maybe lenience towards small
businesses and others who might have trouble putting all that
together right away? Do you think there should be something
that could sort of buy them into the whole program?
Mr. Bell. I think we should do as much as we can to support
job creators. And small businesses are a very important part of
that group, and I think that we need to look at that. Again,
anything we do needs to make common sense and not be
regulatorily burdensome.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Can you name something that is for
a small business that might be regulatorily burdensome?
Mr. Bell. Can you repeat the question, please?
Mr. Webster of Florida. Can you name a particular product
or something provided by a small business that might be
regulatorily prohibitive?
Mr. Bell. I can't name anything right now. I can focus on
the steel industry, and we go to great lengths to make sure
that we provide the Government with the information we need on
emissions as well as the product properties of the products we
make.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Auchincloss.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Chairman.
I appreciate the testimony from our witnesses.
Ms. Osborne, I particularly appreciate your work and your
testimony. You have noted that while today we are spending more
money overall on our roads, the money is not necessarily going
towards repair.
In many cases, as you know, States are spending as much on
expansion as they are on repair. And you rightly point out--and
I want to emphasize--that, quote, ``Every new lane-mile of road
costs approximately $24,000 per year to preserve in a state of
good repair. By expanding roads, we are borrowing against the
future.''
As Congress begins considering the next surface
transportation reauthorization, how should we reprioritize
formula funding to ensure that we are maximizing our existing
roads and not expanding and inducing more vehicular traffic?
Ms. Osborne. Thank you for that question. To be clear, the
$24,000 per lane-mile is a number that we came up with from
Federal Highways in 2019, so, that is probably awfully low. And
the liability of building things has likely become more
expensive.
This committee actually led the way in addressing this
policy-wise. In the last reauthorization, there was bipartisan
language added to your bill originally that said that an agency
could build new infrastructure or expand infrastructure if they
had a plan to maintain it throughout its useful life while
improving the overall condition of their system.
It is something that is just good governance and common
sense. Unfortunately, the Senate and the White House did not
follow your excellent lead, and I would love to see that
language come back in.
Mr. Auchincloss. There is a lot from the INVEST Act that I
would like to see come back in for sure.
You have also noted that our current funding system does
not prioritize access, whether that is access to economic
opportunity, healthcare, family. The current formula incentive
states to simply use more fuel--excuse me--the current formula
incentivizes States to simply use more fuel, not to actually
design a transportation system that connects people with the
places they need to go.
How should we think about reevaluating that formula to
prioritize access to jobs and services instead of simply
inducing more vehicular-miles traveled?
Ms. Osborne. Yes. This is something I am very excited
about, and I really think it could be transformative in
speaking to the user experience and to access to economic
opportunity.
For those that are not familiar with multimodal access, it
is measuring the destinations people can reach when they
travel. The way we measure the success of the transportation
system right now is based on a proxy. That was the best thing
we could do in the 1950s, which is to look at the speed of
vehicles within an observed section, assuming that if we sped
up vehicles within that observed section that people would
arrive where they were going more quickly.
As it turns out, what we do often to speed up that travel
actually extends the distance. Think about roadways where you
have no left turn all the way down and you have to go out of
your way to take that left turn.
We can measure that trip now. Virginia has really led the
way in this and in doing so, I think really improved people's
experience.
Mr. Auchincloss. And I am glad you brought up Virginia.
Let's go one level deeper in granularity to describe what it is
that Virginia has gone to quantify access to jobs and services
within sort of a catchment area to help policymakers understand
how effective their mobility policy is.
Ms. Osborne. They evaluate all new capacity projects on
several items, including access to jobs and access to essential
services. They measure those differently, because a job trip is
expected and okay if it is a little bit longer and certainly
does not--it is not treated the same way as, for example, a
trip to the grocery. A 30-minute trip to a job is an acceptable
amount of time. A 30-minute trip to a grocery is a public
policy problem.
Mr. Auchincloss. So, is it modality-agnostic in the sense
that----
Ms. Osborne [interposing]. It is.
Mr. Auchincloss [continuing]. Regardless of how you get
there.
Ms. Osborne. It is not only modality-agnostic, it actually
brings in distance and land-use decisions. So, if you move the
things people need closer to homes or affordable housing closer
to those things, you can get an access increase as well.
Mr. Auchincloss. And what types of places score higher on
this metric? Is it single-family zoned, highway-centric, car-
centric planning, or is it walkable mixed-use downtowns?
Ms. Osborne. On access to nonwork necessities, definitely
more walkable mixed-use traditional communities.
Mr. Auchincloss. I yield back, Chair.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duit, I heard you made the comment about good
intentions. And we always have a saying around my crowd that
the road to the poorhouse is paved with good intentions. A lot
of folks who have good intentions, but they have no clue about
what they are talking about. I think we find that a lot on this
side.
I want to make another comment, too. In talking with a lot
of the people in the construction business, it seems that a lot
of your percentage of your cost that you have to put in there
is due to permits and the waiting on permits and the fact that
I think that good tort reform in this country would probably
decrease a lot of those permit costs and speed up your projects
overall.
So, I would like for you, if you have a comment, I would
love to hear it. But otherwise, I think that is something that
would be of great value, not just to your industry, but
probably to all industries.
But what I want to get to is Mr. Pugh. Mr. Pugh, my Baptist
in me wanted to stand up and cheer. Congratulations; 2.5
million miles safe driving. People don't realize that is 20
years on the average driver. That not only says a lot about
you, but I think it says a lot about where our industry has
gone with the availability, the technology out there, and the
focus on being safe.
I know in my company, we want to be the most
technologically advanced, the safest with the best employees,
period. And we have a handful of a million milers out there.
I want to focus real quick, because there are some things
that I have heard up here that I want you to make a quick
comment on.
Number one, we heard there is a 76-percent increase in
accidents at 75 miles or over in speed. I don't have a truck
out there that runs 75 miles an hour. And if you actually
looked at the data--AAA has even done this. They didn't want to
admit it. But over 75 percent of the accidents out there are
not the truck's fault. It is the four-wheeler, it is the car,
the automobile's fault. With 98 percent of the trucking
companies out there, 10 trucks or less, 95 percent of them are
5 trucks or less. A huge portion are owner-operators and
independent drivers.
What would this increase that one of the colleagues on the
other side of the aisle is pushing for liability insurance,
what would it do to the trucking industry?
Mr. Pugh. It would, in short, put them out of business, a
lot of the small guys, my members. We don't even know like how
this be would charged. We don't know how insurance would
withstand this, because there is really nothing out there to
measure.
There has already been lots of liability insurance
companies leave the market. We know as people leave the market
and there is less competition, prices go up.
So, this could be disastrous to small business, to supply
chains, to carriers even the size of yours.
Mr. Collins. I think it would be disastrous for the
trucking industry, but it is nothing but a pay raise for trial
lawyers. That is all it is.
Mr. Pugh. One hundred percent.
Mr. Collins. Let's move on. Rear impact guards, I would
venture to say if we had a question in here, people don't even
know what that is. What is a rear impact guard?
Mr. Pugh. It is the DOT bumper, for lack of better terms.
When you see a semitruck going down the road, on the back of
the trailer kind of a T-pattern thing or something like that,
it is the rear bumper.
Mr. Collins. So, we have those, right?
Mr. Pugh. Yes, we do.
Mr. Collins. Is a rear impact guard to prevent the truck
from injuring the car or from the car hitting the truck and
being injured?
Mr. Pugh. It is to keep the car from entering completely in
underneath the truck.
Mr. Collins. So, I think that puts a little more evidence
to the fact that the automobiles out there cause the problem,
and a lot of times we see that the trucking industry takes the
hit.
Mr. Pugh. The trucking industry almost always takes the hit
when--you are correct--over 80 percent of accidents are caused
by the car.
Mr. Collins. So, automatic emergency brakes--man, I got a
boatload of them I would love to get rid of--are they fail
proof?
Mr. Pugh. No, they are not foolproof. We have constant
false acts going on all the time, activations.
Mr. Collins. Go off when you go under a bridge or road
construction sign, anything that may----
Mr. Pugh [interrupting]. I drove a truck back from Reno
last year back to Kansas City. It was constantly going off for
just--there was nothing around, in the middle of Wyoming and
places----
Mr. Collins [interrupting]. Yet we got Federal bureaucracy
out there, bureaucrats, Federal agencies, people that sit
around here that think they know better, have no clue. I
guarantee you, probably the majority of folks in this room
don't have a CDL driver's license. They don't know that
industry.
But since we are out there on the roadway in the motoring
public, we are an easy target because people see us. I mean,
you are scratching your head on what you think you might can
get done this year. You are riding down the road. Oh, there is
a big truck, let's see what we can do to that as well.
I am out of time, but I wanted to add one more thing.
Broker fraud, it is huge and it has been going on for decades,
but I would like to add in there that we have another fraud
going on out there too, and that is the towing industry.
The towing industry has been ripping off the trucking
industry for decades. I know for a fact. I just saw one, a
truck that had an accident by itself, ran off the interstate.
The towing bill was $78,000.
Mr. Pugh. I had a member who received a tow bill a couple
of weeks ago in the State of Pennsylvania. They were charged
$9,000 heat and humidity charge with a 10-percent
administration fee on top of that. It was well over a $60,000
tow bill.
Mr. Collins. The most regulated, taxed, burdened industry
in the world.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Carbajal.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Duit, our transportation sector is the largest source
of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Your
testimony notes your opposition to FHWA's greenhouse gas
performance rule while stating that the American Road &
Transportation Builders Association, ARTBA, is not opposed to
reducing emissions.
How can we accurately reduce greenhouse emissions if we
don't even measure the scope of the problem and potential
solutions, and what specific policies does ARTBA support to
lower greenhouse gas emissions on our roadways?
Mr. Duit. Thank you, Representative.
The rule requires State and local agencies to plan projects
that meet the intended greenhouse gas goals and at least
minimum to create the declining of the GHG totals.
I guess it means the States and other transportation
agencies need to prioritize certain types of projects over
others, as I have mentioned, if they do not align with the
prescribed GHG reduction targets.
The concern is that that could lead to a misallocation of
resources and hinder State-specific transportation needs from
one type of a project to a different type, because that
specific type has a lower GHG reduction.
And I think the concern is that that is not necessarily
doing what the States actually need to have done. They are
doing what is needing to be done based upon the greenhouse gas
emissions. With regard to reducing the greenhouse gas, I do not
have a proposal for that that I am aware of within our
association.
Mr. Carbajal. Mr. Duit, is there anything that ARTBA
supports to lower greenhouse gas emissions on the roadways?
Anything? Something? An iota?
Mr. Duit. An iota? I will tell you what, sir. I will do
some checking and get back with you if that is okay.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Mr. Duit, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has been a
transformative investment for our Nation's roads, bridges, and
infrastructure. In my district, we have seen nearly $1 billion
in Federal dollars from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, also
known as BIL, for local projects. Your testimony highlights
that there have been over 75,000 project commitments in the
first 2 years of the BIL.
Since the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's enactment, 43,000
new construction industry jobs have been created. As the
president of a major construction company, how are you seeing
the benefits of this law, this infrastructure law, play out
across America?
Mr. Duit. Thank you, sir. The infrastructure law has helped
drastically. It has been a true blessing. I think it helps us--
gives us--it gives contractors some clarity, and it gives us
some time.
It is a 5-year bill, so that lets us go out and expend the
money for equipment. It lets us hire people. It gives us the
opportunity to grow our projects. I think it is a win-win.
It is good for the American people in that we have the
ability to make more efficient, quicker ability to get goods
and services to the market as well as keep people safe. But the
more that we put into this, the safer we can make these roads
over a period of time.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Kean.
Mr. Kean of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today.
In 2021, the FHWA released a memorandum encouraging States
to prioritize projects to maintain existing infrastructure
facilities before expanding capacity. While this memorandum was
subsequently nullified by the FHWA as Congress was beginning
its disapproval process, it would have marked a major shift in
the longstanding Federal-State partnership under which States
retain the autonomy to prioritize projects they needed most.
Mr. Duit, can you detail for us ARTBA's position on the
December 2021 policy memo? What do you see as the importance of
States prioritizing projects according to their own needs?
Mr. Duit. Yes, sir. Thank you, Representative. A
longstanding cornerstone of the Federal-Aid Highway Program has
been State flexibility in project selection. That is because
transportation challenges in Oklahoma are going to be different
than they are in, say, Vermont, and States need that ability to
respond accordingly.
Putting aside the fact that States are already spending
nearly half of the formula dollars on repair and rehabilitation
projects, this is another example of the administration trying
to work outside the law. We applaud the FHWA for repealing the
memo and will follow the law ensuring State flexibility.
Mr. Kean of New Jersey. Thank you. Mr. Pugh, the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act explicitly required that
the Department of Transportation consult with truckers about
their experiences with automatic emergency brake systems prior
to publishing a motor vehicle safety standard requiring this
technology. In fact, truckers are the only stakeholders that
were singled out in the law for specific consultation on this
mandate.
A notice of proposed rulemaking was published in June of
2023. How do you think this consultation process went, and can
you speak a little bit more about the process in general?
Mr. Pugh. Yes. As far as the AB process, they have not done
what they said. They have not reached out to drivers or spoke
with drivers at all. Also, since this has come out, NHTSA has
also opened up an investigation on false activations of these
products. So, they are continuing to move forward with a rule
that they know they have a problem with, and they know these
trucks have these false activations.
I have had members and we have had plenty of comments put
out of drivers almost being put in an accident on bad roads and
different things like that, and also being rear-ended because
these things activate and someone is following too close in a
car or something behind them and almost hits or does hit the
truck.
I can't say this enough. I point this out all the time.
Trucks are completely different from cars. And just because a
technology works well in a car, in an automobile, does not mean
that it is going to work well in a truck.
Every load--every type of truck is different as far as
weights and how the product moves and stuff like that. You take
a tanker, there is liquid in there moving the whole thing. So,
the way you have to stop that is completely different from a
load of paper towels in a van trailer.
Mr. Kean of New Jersey. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for appearing here today.
New Jersey's Eighth Congressional District is home to the
largest port on the east coast. While we are very proud of this
asset and all that it brings to our district and what it does
not just for our region but our Nation's economy, we all see an
incredible amount of truck traffic through our communities.
The port and trucking are both vital to our supply chain
and our local and regional economies, but emissions from
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles emit nearly 25 percent of
transportation-related gas emissions.
We also know that transportation is the largest creator of
emissions in the United States. Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles
often operate in densely populated areas such as my district
and can have adverse health impacts on the surrounding
communities. Sadly, these impacts fall disproportionately on
overburdened communities.
Ms. Osborne, first, welcome back. But can you tell us how
does the FHWA's greenhouse gas performance rule work to reduce
emissions along freight corridors and near ports?
Ms. Osborne. Well, I don't want to oversell the rule. It is
a sunlight and tracking rule. It is a rule that requires States
and metropolitan planning organizations to make clear to
Congress and the taxpayer what their intention is in terms of
controlling greenhouse gas emissions. If they fail to meet
their self-set target, there is nothing that happens. But there
is certainly better information to the taxpayer and to
policymakers to determine how they feel about that.
You can't control something you don't measure. So, I think
having folks do a better job of indicating what they expect to
happen in terms of their investment package in terms of
increasing greenhouse gas emissions is an essential first step
to doing something about it.
Mr. Menendez. Increase awareness. More information for
communities to put pressure on those local actors to try to
make those changes in a quicker fashion.
Ms. Osborne. Absolutely. And this is a program where
finding good data is very challenging. In every report we have
ever written about Federal spending, we have very long
appendices that talk about the lack of recent data, comparable
data, complete data.
And so, some of these tracking rules can help to provide
just basic information about where the agencies themselves
think things are going.
Mr. Menendez. I just want to underscore that point because
it is so important. There is a group in Elizabeth, New Jersey,
called Groundwork. And they find unique ways, low-cost ways to
collect data about the different challenges that their
communities are facing.
And so, by having that additional data that groups like
that don't have to source themselves, they can be even better
advocates for their communities. So, it is incredibly important
and something that even if there is no enforcement mechanism, I
believe is still going to be helpful in achieving some of these
goals.
Moving on to worker misclassification. Worker
misclassification has quickly become a large topic of
discussion across all sectors. We have heard quite a bit about
independent contractor and employee classification in this
committee as well as the independent contractor classification
rule finalized by the Department of Labor at the beginning of
this year.
Mr. Pugh, we know that the rule will be good for workers.
It provides clarity and will help to ensure that workers are
not deprived of Fair Labor Standards Act protections like
minimum wage. However, some large corporate motor carriers have
claimed that the rule will harm independent truckers and owner-
operators that want to work as independent contractors.
What are your thoughts on what this new rule will mean for
truckers and owner-operators that have worked as independent
contractors and want to maintain that status?
Mr. Pugh. I feel and we feel that it will not change. If
you are in a compliant lease, working for a carrier with a
lease agreement, you will be fine just like you were prior to
the last rule being passed.
Actually, this rule gives more clarity. It is easier to
show that you are independent, in our opinion. And finally, it
does away with allowing control, because if you are truly an
independent contractor leased, subleased, or whatever to
another motor carrier, you shouldn't be controlled as an
employee, meaning speed limiters and driver fleet management
tools like that must be put into your truck.
The prior rule allowed that and you could still be
considered independent. We don't feel that if you are an
independent driver or independent carrier and you have these
kind of items, have to have them mandated or put into your
truck by the carrier you lease to, that is a sense of control.
This does away with that. So, we are good with the new rule.
Mr. Menendez. I appreciate that and wish I had more time,
but thank you all so much for coming.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
As you can see, there is a vote series underway on the
House floor. Therefore, we shall stand in recess subject to the
call of the chair.
[Recess.]
Mr. Burlison [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit will reconvene the previously recessed hearing.
I now yield to myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Pugh, good to see you today. Recently, the Supreme
Court overturned the Chevron decision that would prevent
agencies from ignoring congressional intent, and it takes away
the agency's ability to loosely interpret statutes for rules.
Just in the past 2 years, we have seen some ridiculous
rules come down from DOT and other agencies. This includes
WOTUS, speed limiters for trucks, greenhouse gas emission
rules, just to name a few.
Do you think that the regulations that were done, that
these regulations have been made based on congressional intent?
Mr. Pugh. No, I don't think most of these have been made,
some of these you are talking about, congressional intent at
all. I think there are certain folks out there who want these
kind of things, whether it is to take away independent or small
businesses' advantage for a profit or something like that.
I mean, the speed limiter rule, FMCSA said that it will put
small-business carriers at a competitive disadvantage to large
motor carriers.
So, again, I think a lot of this stuff comes to serve
special interest groups, who maybe don't have any experience in
commercial trucking or they have it but they are just on the
other side from, like, drivers and my folks.
Mr. Burlison. Do you think that these rules will withstand
a court challenge if they weren't clearly gaining congressional
intent?
Mr. Pugh. Well, we would like to think they won't, but I
think with this whole Chevron doctrine and this just passing,
you know, I am not an attorney. I am a trucker. But we have
attorneys that work for us, and I think this is going to take
10, 20 years maybe to see how this all plays out. We will see.
Mr. Burlison. Hopefully, they get overturned.
Earlier this year, the EPA finalized its rule titled ``The
final standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-
duty vehicles model year 2027 and beyond.''
This is phase 3 of the greenhouse gas standards for heavy-
duty vehicles, and it will force a significant number of trucks
to become electric.
Can you expound on how this rule is going to impact your
industry?
Mr. Pugh. It is going to devastate our industry. Again, as
I said earlier, tractor-trailer trucks are way different than
cars. And maybe this technology can be argued it works somewhat
in cars, but it is far from mainstream with trucks. Trucks,
right now, there is nowhere to really fuel them. No one really
has a way to address how we are going to recharge these trucks.
Small-business carriers like myself, I park my truck at my
house all the time. So, this means when I want to go home or
park my truck, I need to put in a very expensive charging
system in my truck.
Not to mention these trucks weigh 10,000 pounds more than
their diesel counterparts, which means they will haul less of a
payload, which means by hauling less of a payload, you are
going to put more of these trucks out there. And, in fact, in
my personal opinion, they could have an opposite effect and
actually cause more pollution.
Mr. Burlison. Is this technology even available at this
time?
Mr. Pugh. Not that I know of. I mean, there are trucks out
there testing and companies out there have introduced them. But
as far as--I don't know any carriers or anybody that is going
out there and buying these things en masse, because, again,
where do you fuel them?
There was a trucking company in Illinois that was going to
get like 32 units for their company. The city reached out to
them and asked them what they were doing, because they needed
so much electricity. And they told them that they were putting
in these electric trucks. And they said, well, you can't do it,
because your trucks are going to draw more power than our
entire city does from the power grid. We don't have the
electricity to give you.
Mr. Burlison. Yes. I think, in general, we have an energy
demand problem in the United States, and this, I think, would
only exacerbate that problem.
My final question is that I understand there is an attempt
to impose an additional underride protection requirement on
trucks. So, we have the rear protection, but this advisory
committee looked at it and they are trying to require underride
protection on the sides. How do you see that working?
Mr. Pugh. Right now, I don't see it working. First of all,
there is not really good data even saying how many of these
accidents there are and how much they would prevent.
There has not been any real-world testing. And the
committee that you are speaking of that they threw together had
way more safety advocates on it than it did trucking, and they
didn't even come to a consensus at the end of this. And they
ignored the facts of railroad crossings and off-road and other
operational challenges of these underride guards.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you. My time is expired.
I now recognize Mr. Moulton for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pugh, I
would like to pick up on some of these questions we were
talking about, speed limiters and how you mentioned that these
are pursued by special interest groups. They can limit the
ability of small businesses to compete, according to you.
How is that the--how does it hurt small businesses in
trucking to have a speed limiter on your truck?
Mr. Pugh. Yes. Well, we have speed limits. We all know
that. And to oversee----
Mr. Moulton [interrupting]. I know we have speed limits. I
am asking how speed limiters hurt small----
Mr. Pugh [interrupting]. Right. I am getting to that. I am
answering your question. We have speed limits now. Small-
business carriers like myself, they don't need driver
management tools or fuel management tools like these are used
by big carriers, these speed limiters. So, they can go the
speed limit a lot of times where maybe the larger carriers
cannot.
So, the problem is, if you put these on a small carrier,
that is the one competitive advantage they have is that they
can run the speed limit and get the loads there more quickly.
If you take that away from them, they have lost all competitive
advantages now over their bigger carrier counterparts.
Mr. Moulton. Okay, I understand that. That makes sense.
You mentioned that it must be special interest groups or
whatnot who are pushing these technologies. In the last year
for which we have data available, 20 percent of fatal truck
crashes occurred over speeds of 70 miles per hour, resulting in
about 1,000 deaths.
Now, if I care about those 1,000 people who died because of
truck crashes that could have been prevented with speed
limiters, does that make me a special interest guy?
Mr. Pugh. No. I think that we all care about crashes. There
is no one in this world who cares more about highway safety
than the American trucker. Myself personally, 2\1/2\ million
miles, I am very proud of that. Truckers----
Mr. Moulton [interrupting]. Well, if you care about trucker
safety then you shouldn't be so concerned when you have an
advisory committee that has a lot of safety advocates on it.
Speeding was a factor in 29 percent of traffic fatalities
in 2022, killing 12,151 people, 12,151 Americans who lost their
lives due to speeding.
In 2019, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
estimates that the economic cost of speed-related crashes was
about $46 billion. The economic cost to all of us here in
America, $46 billion.
Ms. Osborne, does reducing the speed of vehicles have an
effect on the chance of fatality in an accident?
Ms. Osborne. In general, when a driver is going at higher
speed, their sphere of vision decreases, so, they are less
likely to spot potential points of conflict. And the faster
they are going, the less physics allows them to slow and stop
their vehicle fast enough.
When you hit another vehicle or particularly a person at
high speed, it is more likely to result in serious injury or
fatality, especially as vehicles are getting bigger.
Mr. Moulton. And, of course, we just talked about the
effect, the value of speed limiters. It is a technology that
has been introduced in Europe with no unintended consequences
so far as the studies show. It is a technology that has already
been adopted by many truckers here in the United States.
But bringing it back to the pedestrian level, which you
have just mentioned, Ms. Osborne, research shows that a
pedestrian is twice as likely to be killed by a vehicle
traveling at 30 miles per hour compared to a vehicle moving at
20 miles per hour.
So, we are going off the highways here with truckers
speeding and down to the local level. But how can we encourage
these slower speed limits to increase road safety, to literally
cut fatalities in half for crashes at that speed?
Ms. Osborne. Well, roadway design speeds are often
different than speed limits. We design our roadways to
accommodate higher speeds than the speed limit theoretically
allows. And drivers pick up on that design more than they pick
up on the speed limit, because you see the speed limit sign
every half mile or so, but the design of the roadway is
communicating with you all the time.
Mr. Moulton. That makes a lot of sense.
Ms. Osborne. So, if you build the roadway widely, you get
high-speed travel.
Mr. Moulton. That is helpful. We are running short on time,
so, I want to get to a couple more things.
Between 1993 and 2017, we increased freeway lane-miles by
42 percent. Congestion delays grew during that same period by
144 percent over the same period.
Ms. Osborne, do you believe that increasing highway
capacity helps improve congestion?
Ms. Osborne. Looking at the record, it does not seem to. We
find that in all of the 100 largest cities in the country, even
the ones who had a reduction in population and an increase in
lane-miles saw their congestion go up. So, we are clearly
messing with the wrong lever.
Mr. Moulton. Everybody knows this outside the United States
of America, it seems, or maybe outside of this committee. It is
a really important fact. Increasing highway capacity increases
congestion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
LaMalfa for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pugh, we are talking about disparity of speed limits
when you are on--we all have been on the freeway, and
especially if it is two lanes going one direction, two lanes
the other.
And so, I call them turtle races. I guess that may be a
common phrase or not. So, you got one truck passing another
truck, and they are stuck going 55 on that particular piece of
freeway while cars can go 70.
So, talk a little bit about the difference in speed and
what that does with drivers, the frustration, and then also
just the disparity in speed, how that dynamic acts with safety
in general, whereas if the trucks are able to go the same
speed. Let's say they can all go 65 or 70 like in some States.
What is the safer situation?
Mr. Pugh. Yes. I mean, first and foremost, there is plenty
of data out there to show that a 10-mile-per-hour differential
between trucks and cars creates 227 percent more times that
they interact. Interactions, of course, is where we have
accidents.
If we are really concerned about speed and which I talked
to prior to you, if we really want to do something about it,
instead of differentiating the speed between cars and trucks
then lower the speed for everybody so everybody is going the
same.
That is all we want. That is what our trucking wants is
cars and trucks. So, if you are going to limit trucks to 60
then limit cars to 60, because it is proven over and over and
over that all traffic traveling the same speed limit is the
safest.
We are down to seven States now I think in this country
that have speed differentials. I also think that a State
probably should be deciding their speed limit, not an agency
here in Washington, DC, because I feel like Montana probably
has a better idea than Washington.
Mr. LaMalfa. I am from California, and we have a disparate
speed there of 55 and 70 typically on I-5 I use a lot. And if
we leave it to California, it will probably just get dumber,
but we will see.
But let's speak about the availability of trucks with these
mandates going with EPA joining with CARB to basically outlaw
diesel engines by a particular timeline and then going to much
heavier--you said 10,000 pounds more.
I have seen as much as 16,000 pounds additional weight by
two sets of batteries on a truck, which is one-fifth of the
gross weight of a vehicle at 80,000 pounds additional weight.
Now, you take the diesel engine and the tranny out, and you
probably have a different rear axle since they are all going to
be driven at the wheels, I suppose. So, you are not really
taking that much weight off the truck when you add all that
electric.
So, anywhere, 10,000, 15,000, 16,000 pounds more weight, as
you mentioned, we are going to have--we need 20 percent more
trucks to do the same work. Does that seem about right as far
as the gross weight?
Mr. Pugh. Yes, I would agree. I mean, I pulled a flatbed
the majority of my career, hauled a lot of Mr. Bell's steel
here out of the Ohio Valley. And we got paid by the weight. So,
not only would I be able to haul less steel one time, I would
make less money because I wouldn't be able to haul as much of a
payload.
Mr. LaMalfa. And the steel guy has got to pay five trucks
instead of four to get it hauled, right?
Mr. Pugh. Exactly.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. So, now, talk about availability of--
especially to smaller trucking outfits. Like, on my farm, we
have used trucks, and they are on the older side except for
where the State has said I can't run my 2003 anymore. So, I had
to have them 2011 or newer.
What does it mean when mom and pop truckers are going to be
mandated to have vehicles that they can't afford, because they
have to be a certain tier, a certain timeline? Emphasize that a
little bit, would you please.
Mr. Pugh. That means these folks are probably going to go
out of business, which is going to have another direct effect
to highway safety, because you are taking some of the safest
operators off the road.
These people, like myself, who own their own trucks, have
their own businesses, most of them run used equipment. They
don't want to buy new equipment. For one, the used older
equipment, as you well know, is much more dependable. You can
get along with it better and you can work on it yourself. And
it is very expensive to own and operate----
Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. An average farmer trying to fix
this electronic gear on a truck that you only get to use 5,000
miles, 10,000 miles a year or even the guy that hauls hay for
us here. They don't put that many miles on so that a used truck
that has 400,000 when they buy it is pretty useful to them.
So, lastly, this comment here that the more lane-miles you
add, the more congestion you get. So, does that mean that we
are going to have less congestion if we tear out lanes on the
highway?
Do you want to take a stab at that, Ms. Osborne, as well as
Mr. Pugh? Because that just doesn't compute for me, is that
``let's make it one lane, we ought to have zero congestion,''
right? How the heck does that work?
Ms. Osborne. Sometimes we do see traffic evaporate as he we
shrink our roadways and shrink the footprint. I am just
reporting on the facts. I am looking back at Federal data.
Mr. LaMalfa. Traffic will evaporate if you make the road
smaller?
Ms. Osborne. We have seen that occur when the highways come
down and a lot of----
Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. Is this because you frustrate
people so much they don't even want to use it?
Ms. Osborne. No, because it is just the principle of
choosing the best path. People will choose different times of
day rather than taking discretionary trips during the most
congested hours, things like that.
Mr. LaMalfa. So, like, if there were less restrooms, would
there be shorter lines for the restroom?
Ms. Osborne. Well, I love your restroom example, because it
is like saying I should have seven bathrooms in my house
because I will have a party one time of the year and I need to
make sure no one stands in line.
Mr. LaMalfa. No, but a city has traffic all the time, have
people going in and out for entertainment, moving products and
all that. I just can't believe we are sitting here saying that
the more miles we tear out, the less congestion we are going to
have with a growing population.
Ms. Osborne. The results of more miles have not been good.
Mr. LaMalfa. Pardon?
Ms. Osborne. The results of our strategy have not been
effective.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, if we are having more and more demand
faster than we build, that might be one thing, but tearing
out--anyway, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. That is all I can
do.
Mr. Burlison. The Chair recognizes Mr. Van Drew.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Chair. Instead of implementing the
mandates guaranteed in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is moving
forward with a proposed speed limit mandate.
This rule would potentially limit trucks over 26,000
pounds--and I don't have to tell you all, you know this
already--to a single top speed of 60 miles an hour through the
use of an electronic engine control unit, which is called ECU,
that will be capable of governing a truck's speed regardless of
the speed limit.
On top of this, the Biden administration has been fast-
tracking their woke climate change agenda, which is leaving the
American people and the transportation industry dangerously
vulnerable. It is going to create a lot of problems in the
future.
In the next 10 years, the administration's goal is to force
more than half of the people into electric vehicles. But our
power grid can't take it. It is unreasonable. It doesn't make
sense. It is not an all-of-the-above approach, and it is not
ready for this rushed implementation, which is purely for the
sake of politics.
I have always believed that good politics is good
Government. Well, this is bad Government, and it is bad
politics. Our grid was never designed to support a fully
electric economy and the push far outpaces the demand for
electrification.
A recent study commissioned by the Clean Freight Coalition
stated that the price to build out the supporting charging
infrastructure to fully electrify the trucking industry--
everybody ready for this--would cost $1 trillion. Not $1
billion--$1 trillion. A large burden of that cost being borne
by who? Trucking fleets.
And, again, of course, if the trucking fleets are absorbing
it, who is really ultimately going to be placed on the chopping
block here? The American consumer. They are going to pay the
price.
I am telling you, Americans, American citizens, American
consumers are getting tired of it. They are tired of
politicians coming up with crazy plans to fulfill their
political agenda that accomplish nothing and, worse yet,
actually hurt.
At the end of the day, both groups are going to pay more,
and all the money that goes to this faceless entity that does
nothing to help the American consumer or the trucker--and I
would maintain the trucker and the American consumer are in
this together, and they are in lockstep. Because if the trucker
gets hurt, the consumer gets hurt.
Mr. Pugh, the trucking industry moves 72 percent of the
Nation's freight with slim margins, again, as you know better
than I do. What will be the impact to the trucking industry
and, most importantly, the consumer if you are forced to
electrify on the current timelines and the current proposals?
Mr. Pugh. Yes, thank you. And, if I may, the American
trucker is getting a little tired of it, too, just like the
American consumer. They are tired of being the guinea pigs for
all of this stuff that comes out of the EPA. We were guinea
pigs in 2008, we were the guinea pigs in 2011, and we are going
to be the guinea pigs again.
And what's happened? Every time we have been a guinea pig,
a whole sector of our industry got wiped out because they
couldn't afford this--either couldn't afford it, or once they
got it, it didn't work like it was supposed to, and they
couldn't afford the maintenance to maintain it and to keep
these kind of trucks on the road.
Truckers want clean air. We all want clean air and clean
water, but let's let the free market figure this out. Free
market always does better than Government heavy-handedness.
Mr. Van Drew. Absolutely. You are absolutely right. I just
want you to know that I believe the majority on this committee
supports the truckers, supports the hard work that you do. I
mean, Americans support it because, guess what? If you are not
there moving goods across this great country of ours, the
American people are the ones that are going to suffer, and they
know how hard you work. It is a hard job. It is not easy, and
we appreciate it.
There has also been legislation introduced to Congress that
would increase the minimum required liability insurance level
for motor carriers by more than 500 percent. Not 5 percent, not
50 percent--500 percent from the current levels of $750,000 to
$5 million. This is, obviously, a tremendous increase that I
suspect would have a major impact on trucking companies,
especially the smaller ones.
This is a country of small businesses, but we keep--when I
say ``we,'' I don't mean all of us in Congress, but there are
some folks that keep forgetting about the basis of this
country, which is hard-working men and women who are small
businesses. So, for once, we don't again do something to help
the small businessmen, but maybe the one time we will.
Can you explain, Mr. Pugh, how the current system is
working and what the effects of these proposed changes would
have?
Mr. Pugh. Yes. I mean, the current system is working pretty
well. There have been plenty of studies come right out of
Washington that over 99.4 percent of all accidents are covered
with the $750,000 there is today. That is $750,000, just for
history, that was just sort of pulled out of the air. It wasn't
like they did a study or anything to come up with it. And it
continues to work, and it is covering.
I don't think there are too many laws or regulations here
that come out of Washington, DC, that cover 99.4 percent of all
things. And the other 0.6, they said there is no amount of
money that could cover it. If you raise these minimums 500
percent, this is nothing but a sellout to all the trial lawyers
who got the billboards all up and down the highways saying sue
truckers, sue truckers, sue truckers. Can't go anywhere without
seeing these billboards. Sue. You are in a truck accident; sue.
We forget that over 80 percent of these accidents are
caused by the car, and the cars never carry enough insurance to
cover the loss of the trucker. Nobody wants to talk about that.
Mr. Van Drew. It is what you see on TV--and I am going to
wrap up with this. American people are tired of it. Of course,
the truckers are tired of it. And, you know what--I don't mean
to be crude here, but we are tired of the hard-working average
American in whatever job consistently being screwed by
politicians. Thank you for your work.
I yield back.
Mr. LaMalfa [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. We have
concluded our round of questions here, but I would allow a
second round of questions for anybody that wishes to. I will
have one myself. I recognize myself for 5 minutes; if there are
others that would like to as well.
Let me come back to the automated devices. I am going to
focus on Mr. Pugh once again here.
Now, in my personal life I get really tired of getting
gonged out all the time because I left the key in the ignition
or I am driving around my fields and don't have my seatbelt on
as I am jumping in and out and irrigating, and you can't shut
the damn things off. The dealer says, oh, it is a safety thing.
Well, I have enough of a brain to figure out when I can do it
safely or not.
But we are not given that credit, especially as truckers
who put in lots of miles--many, many miles--as professionals.
So, more and more things are being done to take away their
discretion and their ability, especially mom-and-pop truckers
that are maybe not covering the vast majority of miles or hours
doing so.
So, again, we are talking about automatic emergency braking
systems, the speed limiters we talked about, ELDs, which are
not very highly favored by the smaller truckers. And then truck
shutoff devices that automatically shut the truck off after
reaching hours-of-service limits. Now, nothing mankind makes is
perfect, so, these systems can all glitch.
I have to wonder about--and we are seeing this on
automobiles, cars and pickups, that they glitch. And you have
got automatic braking. If it detects you are too close to
another car, and you are driving along and the car is jerking
on you, trying to do things automatically for you. People
aren't perfect, but neither are the devices.
So, Mr. Pugh, talk about--and a scenario I have heard about
is that with automatic emergency braking systems, what if you
are driving an 80,000-pound rig in an icy condition and
something detects that we need to jam on the brakes? What does
that do to upset the control of the truck in that situation or
others that you know of that you can tell the committee here
today?
Mr. Pugh. Yes. Thank you. Yes. In short, it will put you
into a skid if you are not real careful or don't know what you
are doing. That is where I point out the fact, as I said
earlier, cars are much different than trucks. A truck is way
longer. It is 65, 70 feet long, the tires are bigger, where the
wheels of the tires are at on the road at the time. Then you
add in the different kinds of loads.
If you are hauling a low load of pieces of pipe or
something, it doesn't stand very high on your trailer, you have
a lower center of gravity, that handles completely different
than if you are hauling a giant single coil that weighs 50,000
pounds and is 6 feet tall but only 4 feet wide. You are a very
high center of gravity, it is easy to tip.
Put liquid into the mix. If you pull a tanker--I pulled a
tanker for a little bit. I generally said it felt like you were
on a boat all the time, because as you are going down the
highway, that stuff is in there sloshing. You are on an icy
road and you hit the brakes or they automatically just lock up,
and that chemical or something that is in that tanker comes
forward, it is going to put you in a heck of a situation. You
are going to be passing yourself.
Mr. LaMalfa. The trucker is thinking about that load as he
is going, whereas the automatic device just wants to be
automatic, right?
Mr. Pugh. Yes. I mean, as a trained trucker----
Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. Thinking about that in respect
to a liquid and such.
Mr. Pugh. In my opinion, as a trained trucker--and this is
what we should be looking at is training truckers instead of
coming out with all kinds of electronic devices that dumb down
the industry. Let's train the people behind the wheel to drive
the truck.
I hauled frac sand for a long time down in West Virginia in
the mountains. You have to know what you are doing to drive
off-road and go up the side of a mountain. I mean, I was pulled
up the side of a mountain with a dozer it was so steep. You
can't make computers, in my opinion, that can do these kind of
things.
And you know what, we all forget--and you said it yourself,
Congressman--computers have bad days, too. I can't get my
freaking phone to sync to my 2022 Ford pickup truck half the
time, and I think that is pretty basic technology. But it
doesn't work a lot.
But now we want to put all these things into trucks and
say, hey, you are safer now. We teach pilots to fly the plane
before we teach them to fly the plane with all the technology.
Let's teach truckers to drive----
Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. Well, we had an issue with 737s
that they had too much gadgetry on there they were relying on
instead of the pilot knowing how to fly the plane, and I
wholeheartedly agree with you on that.
The more automated it is, the easier it is for people to
get lazy on automobiles. Truckers are pretty disciplined.
But talk quickly about the automatic shutoff devices for
reaching hours of service. Now, since these things can glitch--
my tractors glitch, my combines glitch. I mean, what kind of
scenario would you see of a possible engine shutoff because it
reaches hours of service while somebody is still actively
driving? What's the possibility of that?
Mr. Pugh. To be clear, Congressman, I don't think there is
really a device that shuts your truck off because you are
nearing out of service. You do have the ELD in your truck which
keeps track of your hours of service. And what that will do is
once you go over, it is going to flag you in violation.
Mr. LaMalfa. Right.
Mr. Pugh. Where that becomes a problem, if I may, is
drivers every day are left with a decision on whether they can
park their truck in a safe place to take a break or be in
violation to try to find a safe place.
We saw a tragic accident in Illinois 6 months ago where a
bus hit a truck that was illegally parked. That trucker had to
make that decision, and he was tired. So, he pulled off on that
ramp to get a break because we don't have enough parking in
this country.
I drove by that ramp last week going back to Kansas City
from my home in Ohio visiting family. That ramp on Sunday
morning at 8:30 in the morning, there were 10 trucks down that
ramp and out along the side of that highway, that same ramp,
because we still have nowhere to park these trucks.
Mr. LaMalfa. I have seen them. Yep. And then we still have
the problem, are they carrying hazardous products or livestock
that, you know, they got caught in traffic and they need an
extra bit of time. There isn't that discretion to get to a
location that is safe or be able to offload the livestock.
Sometimes you need an extra hour. And then the rules come down
so hard upon them.
So, in general, what we are hearing is that--and close on
this, Mr. Pugh--we have a general regulatory direction that
seems to take away the ability of the individuals to make good
decisions, make safe decisions because Government is overriding
and a device is overriding.
Is that the general feel of your drivers in your industry?
Mr. Pugh. Yes. I think that is a general feel. I think my
drivers would like to start seeing commonsense regulation that
is coming from experienced truckers. And instead of making
regulations on a false fake driver shortage narrative, which is
we have seen over and over and over, that is where this
electronic stuff is. Because we keep saying we have this driver
shortage that we don't have. We have a training shortage, we
have a parking shortage, we have a pay shortage. We don't have
no driver shortage.
So, let's keep people in this industry. Let's listen to the
people who do the job.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. I have violated my own timeline here, so,
I better yield back to the committee here.
I appreciate the answers and--so, with that, I don't see
anybody else here who wants to go for a second round. So, no
further questions from the committee, we will conclude our
hearing for today. I would like to thank all of the witnesses
for being here and for your testimony.
With that, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Letter of July 23, 2024, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Chairman,
and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, from Alliance for American Manufacturing et al.,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford
July 23, 2024.
Honorable Rick Crawford,
Chair,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Washington, DC 20515.
Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Norton,
In advance of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit July 24,
2024, hearing to examine pending regulatory and administrative issues
at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), we write to highlight
actions we believe necessary to ensure that federal Buy Clean policies
are implemented in a way that enhances the competitiveness of domestic
industry, creates good jobs for America's workers, and reduces
pollution by encouraging the use of low-embodied carbon (LEC)
construction materials.
With the right implementing policies in place, a preference for LEC
construction materials has the potential to incentivize and accelerate
capital investments to support strengthening and decarbonization of
domestic manufacturing across all of our industrial sectors. Effective
implementation of this policy stands to support good jobs in
communities around the country and reward companies producing cleaner
goods while incentivizing fellow domestic competitors to follow suit.
FHWA has a key role to play in ensuring that the goals of a federal
Buy Clean program are met. In March 2024, the FHWA announced the $2
billion Low-Carbon Transportation Materials Grants Program (LCTM)--as
authorized in IRA Section 60506 and codified in 23 U.S.C. 179--to fund
procurement of low carbon materials, including concrete (and cement),
glass, asphalt mix, and steel. Key details of the program are currently
being formulated by FHWA. Thus, our organizations appreciate the
opportunity to highlight several critical implementation
recommendations necessary for the success of the Buy Clean program.
This includes ensuring that incentives to decarbonize are accessible to
all domestic firms, fully implementing Buy America policies, and
providing clarity, consistency, and certainty for all stakeholders.
FHWA's Buy Clean Program Must Distinguish Between Primary and Secondary
Steelmaking
To meet the goals of Buy Clean, FHWA must structure its program to
foster competition among like firms by distinguishing between primary
(integrated) and secondary (electric arc furnace, or EAF) steelmaking.
Failing to do so risks undermining the intent of the policy by not
incentivizing all segments of the industry to reduce emissions. Steel
is produced using two distinct feedstocks: primary steel is
predominantly produced from iron-ore pellets whereas secondary steel is
produced predominantly from scrap metal. Both steel production pathways
are critical for maintaining national and economic security, and to
meet growing infrastructure demands. In some cases, each is distinctly
necessary for different applications.
Given the typically higher emissions intensity of primary
steelmaking, a single Buy Clean standard that compares the global
warming potential (GWP) of primary steel to that of secondary steel
fails to recognize that primary steelmaking will not be replaced with
secondary steelmaking. A single standard would not only adversely
impact the climate goals of lowering carbon emissions, but also jobs--
specifically union jobs throughout the integrated steelmaking supply
chain--by excluding domestic primary producers from Buy Clean markets.
Such an outcome further risks displaced production and thereby leaking
emissions to countries with lower climate standards.
Distinct standards will push primary producers to compete with each
other, leading to lower emissions, while fostering similar competition
among secondary steel facilities. A single steel standard would give
primary steel producers no incentive to decarbonize and would merely
reward secondary producers for their existing business model. Congress
clearly intended for the funding authorized in IRA Section 60506 to
incentivize and accelerate capital investments in the strengthening and
decarbonization of domestic manufacturing across all of our industrial
sectors--not for it to exclude primary steel producers and their
workers--including union workers--from decarbonization incentives. As
longstanding and steadfast backers of Buy Clean policies, our
organizations believe that FHWA must adhere to the clear congressional
intent underlying this authorization.
Moreover, a bifurcated standard for steel would make FHWA's Buy
Clean program consistent with that of the General Services
Administration (GSA), which, in cooperation with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), recognized this imperative by distinguishing
between primary and secondary steel production processes. To ensure a
clear standard is being set for all industry participants across the
government, FHWA should incorporate in its solicitation criteria
distinct standards for primary and secondary steel consistent with GSA.
Buy Clean Must Account for Buy America + Buy Clean Coverage
Discrepancies
The 2021 Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL) addressed loopholes, narrow agency
application, excessive use of waivers, and weak federal enforcement by
harmonizing and modernizing Buy America rules. BABA also expands
coverage to more infrastructure materials, programs, and projects.
While waivers are still available in select circumstances to overcome
short-term market limitations, enforcing BABA fulfills the demand of
taxpayers to close loopholes, provide more oversight, and better
support U.S. manufacturing and good-paying jobs for workers across
various sectors. Successful implementation of BABA will ensure that
taxpayer dollars support U.S. supply chains, workers, and communities
instead of foreign competitors while preventing leakage of jobs and
emissions overseas.
Our organizations have urged that Buy Clean policies be implemented
concurrently with full implementation of statutory Buy America
requirements, as failure to do so could have negative outcomes for
domestic manufacturers and American workers. Further, this would
undermine our shared climate goals to grow a cleaner domestic
manufacturing sector using the purchasing power of federal acquisition
and federal assistance.
While federal assistance through FHWA is subject to Buy America
policies, there are many instances when foreign sourcing is permitted--
through policy loopholes, waivers or other policies that narrow their
application. For instance, cementitious materials have been statutorily
exempted as a ``construction material'' in BABA, meaning there are no
equivalent domestic preferences in place for a variety of carbon-
intensive materials like cement, concrete, and asphalt. A successful
Buy Clean program that relies first on LEC materials produced by U.S.
workers must account for these policy shortcomings.
Additional Buy Clean Implementation Issues
Our organizations have highlighted a number of additional actions
necessary to build on the success enjoyed to date and ensure these
policies have a more meaningful and positive impact in the future. To
ensure harmonization, clarity, consistency, and certainty, these
recommendations include:
1. Prioritizing a consistent set of definitions for new or
previously narrowly used terms in Buy Clean implementation and
compliance;
2. Ensuring consistency of underlying datasets and threshold
criteria;
3. Expanding the coordinating role of the Federal-State Buy Clean
Partnership to avoid unworkable or conflicting policies;
4. Providing technical assistance, particularly to small- and
medium-sized enterprises;
5. Improving communications around federal solicitations; and
6. Conducting broad stakeholder engagement, particularly with
labor, environmental, other non-governmental organizations, and
industry stakeholders.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Alliance for American Manufacturing.
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
BlueGreen Alliance.
League of Conservation Voters.
National Wildlife Federation.
NRDC Action Fund.
Sierra Club.
Third Way.
United Steelworkers.
Letter of August 6, 2024, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Chairman,
and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, from Jim Tymon, Executive Director, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Submitted
for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford
August 6, 2024.
The Honorable Rick Crawford,
Chair,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, United States House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20590.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, United States House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20590.
Dear Chair Crawford and Ranking Member Norton:
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) welcomes the opportunity to submit this letter for
the record of the hearing entitled ``Examining the Department of
Transportation's Regulatory and Administrative Agenda'' held on July
24, 2024. AASHTO, representing state departments of transportation
(state DOTs) in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico, is grateful to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit for
holding an important oversight hearing on the U. S. Department of
Transportation's (USDOT) regulations and implementation of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
One key area of focus for the hearing was related to the use of
regulations to reduce the tragic number of fatalities and injuries that
occur each year on this nation's roadways. State DOTs have no higher or
more urgent priority than ensuring the safety of every user of our
nation's transportation system. State DOT employees work hard every day
to keep their families, friends, neighbors and travelers in their
states safe when using their transportation networks. Yet this country
continues to experience a crisis in which too many users of our
transportation system do not make it home safely. It is crucial to
address this crisis using all means and methods at our disposal. As
called upon by AASHTO President Craig Thompson, the state DOT community
is harnessing all their data and best practices to significantly move
the needle on safety across the country. AASHTO and our members believe
achieving this goal is our shared responsibility and collaborative
action offers our best opportunity to achieve it.
In order to resolutely and firmly reinforce the commitment of state
DOTs' to connecting places and communities with a transportation system
free of fatalities and serious injuries, AASHTO held a highly
successful Safety Summit in October 2023 that brought together a broad
array of transportation stakeholders to discuss strategies and steps
that can be taken together to achieve this commitment. To continue this
momentum, another edition of the Safety Summit is planned for this
October. AASHTO also strongly supports the priorities outlined in the
USDOT National Roadway Safety Strategy and proudly served as a First
Mover among the Allies in Action.
In addition, AASHTO's Board of Directors passed the Safety
Resolution in November 2023 which established AASHTO's Safety Action
Plan, that:
Promotes sharing notable practices, tools, policies, and
other resources among states.
Promotes a coordinated and consistent data-driven
decision-making approach to road safety throughout the project
lifecycle.
Prioritizes resources that need to be developed by AASHTO
or others to assist state DOTs in institutionalizing safety.
Identifies actions for AASHTO councils and committees to
undertake individually or jointly to implement and enhance the plan.
Establishes new partnerships to further promote a culture
of safety.
When looking at advancing safety through performance management and
target-setting, AASHTO and its members acknowledge and appreciate that
what we measure matters, with the nation's state DOTs serving as
primary stewards of the federal performance management framework that
was enacted in 2012 under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century (MAP-21) Act. Since initial implementation began in 2013, with
the full effect of the federal law and subsequent iterations of the
Federal Highway Administration's regulations being in place since 2018,
state DOTs have delivered on the Congressional intent of the
performance management provisions--which is to provide a consistent
framework to measure the performance of the transportation system.
Under state DOTs' leadership, the national performance management
framework has been implemented in a manner that advances a safer and
more efficient transportation system while minimizing undue regulatory
burdens on states. Given the scale and complexity of this framework,
there continue to be recognized challenges to further accomplish a
safer and more efficient transportation system, an area in which the
state DOTs and USDOT continue to address through their longstanding
partnership.
Target setting--including for MAP-21's safety performance
measures--is a significantly data-driven and multidisciplinary process
that seeks to close the gap between the policy goals and real-world
outcomes in a strategic manner. Congress recognized in 23 USC 150 that
this strategic approach required target-setting flexibility that best
meets the unique needs of each state, which are impacted by a wide
range of constraints and opportunities affecting their specific
transportation system. Available funding, legislative mandates and
priorities, and issues identified through the public involvement
process can factor into states' planning and target-setting. In
addition, population growth, a growing economy, and increased
international trade are expected to result in growing passenger and
freight movement, all of which can impact performance measures both on
aggregate and per-capita basis--sometimes in different directions.
Consequently, it is essential that states and metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) have the flexibility to set targets, including
targets that have performance holding steady or, in some situations,
declining. This flexibility is critical to state DOTs to balance the
breadth of performance measures they must address.
AASHTO has consistently stated that state DOTs must maintain the
ability to set targets for improving, declining, or constant
performance because an important function of performance management is
to answer two broad questions:
What performance can be achieved? In other words, what
type of performance level can be achieved given the resources
available?; and
What resources are needed? In other words, how much
funding is needed to achieve a certain performance level?
Improving targets may or may not be achievable depending on many
factors, including trends in the state, the economy, and the level of
autonomy the state DOT has to impact activities that could support
target attainment. In addition, FHWA's guidance on performance
management and target setting states that:
``The FHWA strongly discourages the use of aspirational
targets. In 23 CFR 490.101, a target is defined as a
quantifiable level of performance or condition, expressed as a
value for the measure, to be achieved within a time period
required by FHWA.
Setting aspirational targets that are not data-driven,
realistic, or achievable does not align with the performance
management framework or the stated congressional policy to
improve project decision-making through performance-based
planning and programming . . .'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FHWA Transportation Performance Management Frequently Asked
Questions, Target Setting, Should aspirational targets be used as
performance targets?, available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/
faq.cfm. Accessed 9/28/2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And:
``FHWA strongly discourages using aspirational targets or TZD
[toward zero deaths] targets for setting annual targets . . .
States and MPOs should ensure their annual targets are data-
driven, realistic and achievable. Setting aspirational or TZD
targets that are not data-driven, realistic or achievable does
not align with performance management framework or the stated
congressional policy to improve project decision-making through
performance-based planning and programming (23 U.S.C. 150(a)) .
. .
The Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Planning Rule (23
CFR Part 450) also requires States and MPOs to take a
performance-based approach to planning and programming, linking
investment decision-making to the achievement of performance
targets in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (23 CFR
450.206 & 23 CFR 450.306). It may be difficult to demonstrate
how investments contained in the STIP and TIP link to
achievement of targets if the targets are aspirational or not
data-driven. This requirement applies to safety targets in
addition to other performance areas.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FHWA Q&A on Safety Performance Measures Final Rule, HSIP Target
Setting, May States or MPOs establish aspirational or Toward Zero
Deaths (TZD) annual targets when those targets are not reasonably
achievable in the time frame represented by the target (annually) to
meet the requirements of the Safety Performance Management (Safety PM)
rule?, available at https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/faqs.cfm.
Accessed on 9/28/2022.
Safety will always be the highest priority for state DOTs. AASHTO
remains extremely concerned with the increases in roadway fatalities
and serious injuries in recent years, and state DOTs are doing all they
can--including through performance management--to improve real world
outcomes and most importantly, save lives.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input, and please reach
out to Joung Lee, Deputy Director-Chief Policy Officer, with any
questions.
Sincerely,
Jim Tymon,
Executive Director,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Letter of July 24, 2024, 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
July 24, 2024.
The Honorable Rick Crawford,
Chairman,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Holmes Norton and Members of
the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit:
On behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors, a national
construction industry trade association with 67 chapters representing
more than 23,000 members, I write to thank you for holding a hearing on
``Examining the Department of Transportation's Regulatory and
Administrative Agenda.'' This hearing is vital to ensuring the U.S.
Department of Transportation conforms with congressional intent. It
also provides the U.S. House of Representatives the opportunity to
evaluate DOT's policies and priorities, which have a significant impact
on infrastructure projects nationwide.
Since Pete Buttigieg became secretary of transportation in January
2021, he has played a significant role in promoting the Biden-Harris
administration's sweeping environmental and labor initiatives rather
than prioritizing efficient and economical infrastructure improvements.
Specifically, through notice of funding opportunities and regulations,
Secretary Buttigieg has implemented policies that discriminate against
businesses and workers in favor of special interests. Rather than
welcome all American businesses and workers to participate on
infrastructure projects, the DOT stripped the ability of many small
businesses to compete fairly for projects.
ABC is extremely concerned with the trajectory of Secretary
Buttigieg's DOT. Most critical for ABC and our members are the
determinantal rulemakings that the DOT advanced along with the
stipulations its has placed on taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects
highlighted below:
National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and
Requirements: On Feb. 28, 2023, the DOT's Federal Highway
Administration released a final rule that establishes the National
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program. This rule implements
provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed into
law in 2021, which include $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 a domestic push to shift away from gas-
powered vehicles. As part of the rule, DOT requires 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. This discriminatory
rulemaking disregards ABC's comments on the proposed rule, which
expressed concern the rule would prohibit qualified contractors from
building EV chargers and bottleneck workforce development. As of July
23, reports indicate that only seven of 500,000 electric vehicle
charging stations have been constructed with the $7.5 billion in
federal investment available through the FHWA's National Electric
Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program.
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability
and Equity Grant Program: The RAISE Grant Program provides federal
assistance to state and local government entities for the purpose of
major surface transportation infrastructure projects. At least $2.275
billion in funding appropriated by the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act and other funding sources is available. Unfortunately, the DOT
attempted to steer these funds toward applicants that require project
labor agreements on their projects by including specific language in
the notice of funding opportunity indicating that PLAs will increase
applicants' scores for ``partnership and collaboration,'' improving
their chance of receiving RAISE funds. 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.
Additional Grant Opportunities: Despite the negative
impact of language and policies promoting PLA mandates and preferences,
ABC has identified a significant number of federal agency grants issued
by the Biden-Harris administration similar to the RAISE Program--
totaling more than $270 billion for infrastructure projects procured by
state and local governments. These preferences and mandates will
increase costs and reduce competition on federally assisted
construction projects. Specific to the DOT, ABC has identified 25
federal grant opportunities since 2022, totaling more than $51 billion,
that include project labor agreement preferences. These DOT preferences
provide grant applicants preferable treatment, by increasing the score
regarding economic competitiveness and partnership. In addition, others
clearly state that projects with PLAs will be prioritized. The
misguided pro-PLA objectives advanced by Secretary Buttigieg's DOT are
wide reaching and extend to the following: RAISE Grants NOFO, Bus/Bus
Facilities NOFO, Combined NOFO, Small Shipyard Grants NOFO, Carbon
Reduction Program Guidance, Safe Streets and Roads for All NOFO,
Natural Gas Distribution Infrastructure Safety and Modernization Grant
NOFO, Bridge Investment Program NOFO, Port Infrastructure Development
Program Grants NOFO, RAISE NOFO, All Stations Accessibility Program
NOFO, Ferry Programs Combined NOFO, Reconnecting Communities Pilot
Program NOFO, Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program, Promoting Resilient
Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving
Transportation Program, Combined NOFO FY2023-2024, Department of
Transportation Bridge Investment Program, Large Bridge Project Grants
and the Department of Transportation RAISE Grants FY 2024 NOFO.
The DOT policies under the Biden-Harris administration prevent some
of the best and most experienced federal contractors from pursuing
federal construction contracts funded by taxpayers for no other reason
than because these large and small businesses are not willing and able
to sign a union agreement. By mandating PLAs, the Biden-Harris
administration is steering work toward its special interests, which
comprise 10% of the industry, at the expense of taxpayers and free
enterprise.
To prevent the DOT from including pro-PLA language within its
discretionary grant programs, ABC urges you to co-sponsor H.R.1209, the
Fair and Open Competition Act, to ensure federal and federally assisted
contract awards occur through a fair and competitive bidding process
that allows all qualified contractors to compete on a level playing
field based on merit, experience, quality and safety to deliver the
highest-quality projects at the best cost.
ABC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the committee's vital
oversight of the DOT. It is essential the committee encourages the DOT
to prioritize our nation's infrastructure over radical policy
initiatives.
ABC members stand ready to build America's infrastructure in the
21st century.
Sincerely,
Kristen Swearingen,
Vice President, Legislative and Political Affairs,
Associated Builders and Contractors.
Statement of the National Association of Small Trucking Companies,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford
The National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC)
appreciates the subcommittee's holding this hearing to examine the
Department of Transportation's (DOT) regulatory and administrative
agenda. Regrettably, the Biden-Harris administration's DOT has wielded
an even heavier hand than the Obama administration did. And the costs
and burden of this regulatory morass fall disproportionately harshly on
small trucking firms.
NASTC is a member-based organization whose 14,000 member companies
range from a significant segment that operates as a single-power-unit,
owner-operator model to carriers having more than 100 power units;
NASTC members average 12 power units. These companies mostly operate in
the long-haul, over-the-road, full-truckload, for-hire, irregular-route
sector of interstate trucking. NASTC members come from the largest
segment of America's long-haul trucking: small motor carrier
businesses. They are representative of the vast majority of our
nation's commercial motor carriers, those having fewer than 100 power
units.
Recent estimates quantify how much the regulatory burden costs the
U.S. economy. The National Association of Manufacturers says the total
cost is $3.1 trillion annually.\1\ In its analysis, the Competitive
Enterprise Institute says the current administration has been much more
regulatorily active than its immediate predecessor administrations.\2\
CEI's report puts total compliance costs and economic effects due to
federal regulations at $2.1 trillion annually. DOT ranks third ``most
active rule-producing executive branch'' agency in the U.S. government
for FY 2023. President Biden in three years has averaged 87 highly
significant rules per year; in four years, President Trump averaged 72
annually, including more than 50 deregulatory actions that reduce the
costs regulations impose; President Obama, over eight years, averaged
69 completed economically significant rules annually; over his eight
years, President George W. Bush averaged 49 completed economically
significant rules per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://nam.org/issues/regulatory-and-legal-reform/cost-of-
regulations/#crains
\2\ https://cei.org/studies/ten-thousand-commandments-2024/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, regulatory ping pong is alive and well, including at
DOT. The Obama administration proposed a host of trucking regulations.
The Trump administration withdrew many of them. The Biden-Harris DOT
revived those regulatory proposals, such as the speed limiter
rulemaking and the safety fitness determination (SFD) rulemaking. NASTC
opposes these regulations.
As we have expressed to the committee many times before, mandatory
speed limiters would create rolling traffic jams and increase
congestion, frustration, and risky driving tactics--leading to more
highway accidents, injuries, deaths, and property loss. Meanwhile, it
would deprive small carriers of the ability to drive the speed limit on
highways, as opposed to the governed trucks of the megacarriers as a
means to control their fuel costs. This would raise costs of operation.
The SFD rule would further confuse the issue that the Compliance
Safety Accountability's (CSA) subjective, spottily data-based, unfair-
to-small carrier ratings have completely failed to achieve since its
initiation in 2010. If this administration's Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) were serious about ensuring carrier
safety, it would implement the idea NASTC has advocated for several
years now: Scale up the new entrant virtual safety inspection such that
bi- or triennial safety ``audits'' are conducted on every carrier with
DOT authority (i.e., FMCSA would oversee sufficient numbers of
contractors to conduct audits of half or one-third of the population of
interstate motor carriers each year); each ``audit'' should result in
issuance of a Satisfactory safety rating, unless objective evidence
leads to subsequent investigation; FMCSA should provide extensive due-
process measures to ensure a carrier can efficiently, promptly take
measures to warrant and expeditiously receive at least a Conditional
rating within five days.
Another regulatory burden is the automatic emergency braking (AEB)
mandate. This was enacted in the infrastructure law. AEBs in heavy
vehicles will cause more wrecks than they prevent. The technology is
far too premature to use at scale, much less to mandate on commercial
vehicles.
These regulations were rejected over the years since CSA was
initiated, and resurfaced under each Democratic administration. They
should be rejected now and in the future (and the AEB mandate
repealed).
In addition, the Biden-Harris administration threatens trucking and
its ability to perform the vital role it plays in our supply chains
through several other lines of regulatory assault. One is the
Environmental Protection Agency's phase 3 greenhouse gas standard. The
EPA reaches the height of absurdity with such an unachievable,
unrealistic GHG requirement. This obviously is part of the
administration's zealotry for forcing America, including the trucking
industry, into all-electric vehicles. The administration's ultimate
goal, the elimination of internal-combustion vehicles, faces an
American public that rejects that destination.\3\ Moreover, the cost is
prohibitive. The Roland Berger firm has estimated that infrastructure
costs alone for fully switching trucking to electric power would cost
$1 trillion.\4\ Then the extra weight of electric batteries translates
into less freight that a single tractor-trailer could haul, requiring
many more vehicles on the road to carry the same amount of freight
larger capacity rigs carry today. Such absurd regulatory burdens will
carry unreasonable costs that will necessarily be passed along to
shippers, warehousers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and
consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-electric-vehicle-
mandate-gas-powered-cars-2032-epa-
c2a72414?st=zpwhzjf3qa9p5v7&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
\4\ https://www.cleanfreightcoalition.org/sites/default/files/2024-
03/RB%20Study%20Report_
final%5B111225%5D.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, there is the heavy-handed regulatory excess of the
administration's assault on the independent contractor model. The
Biden-Harris Department of Labor is pursuing policies that would
essentially federalize the California AB5 law and its ``ABC test'' for
worker reclassification. Blue-collar entrepreneurs in the trucking
sector opt for independent-contractor status. Yet, the Biden
administration seeks to impose AB5's reclassifying independent owner-
operators as ``employees'' on the entire United States. Land Line
reports, ``California has made an adversary out of many in the trucking
industry . . . [and is] driving truckers out of the state.'' \5\ AB5's
B prong (The service is performed outside the usual course of the
business of the ``employer.'') is impossible for most independent
contractors, including those in trucking, to meet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Mark Schremmer, ``AB5 creates `hurdle' for truckers, California
Trucking Association leader says,'' Land Line (April 13, 2023) (https:/
/landline.media/ab5-creates-hurdle-for-truckers-california-trucking-
association-leader-says/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be bad enough if these regulatory measures were enacted by
Congress. The end-running of the legislative branch, abuse of
administrative authorities, and overreaching regulatory processes
corrupt the functioning of our government and make the governed cynical
toward the federal government. The data in the findings of the above-
cited and other studies show that this administration has been overly
energetic with administrative actions that foul up the separation of
powers, the constitutional checks and balances, and the accountability
of the regulatory and administrative state.
We can assure the subcommittee that the Biden regulatory burden and
cost are felt in the small trucking sector. Just in our relatively
small population of companies, almost 4,000 member companies have
closed or suspended their authority. In addition, we feel that almost
all of these regulatory overreaches have violated the spirit and true
meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act.
This reregulation onslaught aimed at small businesses and the
trucking industry has accelerated, it seems, as regulators have lost
sight of our way of life, our economy, and our future. To the
administration's shame, based on just-released fatality numbers for
2021, since CSA's implementation in 2010, raw fatality numbers have
skyrocketed from 3,675 in 2010 to 5,788 in 2021, and from 1.3 per 100
million miles travelled to 1.9 per 100 million miles travelled those
same years. And, for the first time in history, over 1,000 occupants of
large trucks, almost all being professional CDL holders, lost their
lives in highway accidents.
Letter of August 6, 2024, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Chairman,
and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, from NATSO, Representing America's Travel Plazas
and Truckstops, and SIGMA: America's Leading Fuel Marketers, Submitted
for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford
August 6, 2024.
The Honorable Rick Crawford,
Chairman,
Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
20515.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Ranking Member,
Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
20515.
RE: Letter for the Record of the Highways Subcommittee Hearing,
``Examining the Department of Transportation's Regulatory and
Administrative Agenda.''
Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Holmes Norton:
NATSO, Representing America's Travel Centers and Truckstops, and
SIGMA: America's Leading Fuel Marketers (together, the
``Associations'') \1\ appreciate the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Highways and Transit Subcommittee (the ``Subcommittee'')
for convening a hearing on the Department of Transportation's
(``DOT's'') regulatory agenda. The Associations are concerned that the
Department of Education, in conjunction with DOT, plans to propose a
rule that would expand the definition of a vending machine under the
Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program to allow electric vehicle
(``EV'') charging at Interstate rest areas.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NATSO currently represents approximately 5,000 travel plazas
and truckstops nationwide, comprising both national chains and small,
independent locations. SIGMA represents a diverse membership of
approximately 260 independent chain retailers and marketers of motor
fuel. Together, the Associations represent approximately 90 percent of
retail sales of motor fuel in the United States.
\2\ See the Biden Administration's Unified Agenda of Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions, ``Amendments to Definitions Under the Randolph-
Sheppard Vending Facility Program and Related Provisions of That
Program and to the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program'',
currently ``pending review'' by the Office of Management and Budget,
RIN 1820-AB83, available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eoDetails?rrid=616662.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any administrative action that would allow for EV charging
infrastructure to be installed at rest areas on the Interstate right-
of-way would be in direct contravention of longstanding, clearly
defined statute.\3\ Congress most recently reaffirmed this position
under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (``IIJA'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 23 USC 111. Agreements relating to use of and access to rights-
of-way-Interstate System.
\4\ P.L. 117-58 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal agencies do not have the authority to circumvent Congress
and should therefore dispense with any impending regulatory action that
would allow for commercial services at Interstate rest areas, including
EV charging infrastructure.
I. The Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program
The Randolph-Sheppard Act of 1936 \5\ authorized the Vending
Facility Program to provide blind business owners with remunerative
employment and self-support through the operation of vending facilities
on federal and other property. Randolph-Sheppard was intended to
enhance employment opportunities for trained, licensed blind persons to
operate vending facilities. More than simply providing passive income
from vending machines on federal property to blind individuals,
Randolph-Sheppard is a success because it provides blind entrepreneurs
with the opportunity to own and operate their own business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ P.L. 74-732, as amended by P.L. 83-565 and P.L. 93-516; 20
U.S.C. Sec. 107 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The Rest Area Commercialization Ban and Vending Machine Exception
When Congress created the Interstate Highway System in 1956,
Congress and community leaders recognized that highways could
potentially decimate local businesses, jobs, and tax bases as motorists
bypassed cities and towns. Congress therefore included language
prohibiting Interstate System rest areas located along the right-of-way
from offering commercial services. As a result, a robust off-highway
business environment emerged at the Interstate exchanges. Since its
enactment, Congress has repeatedly and consistently upheld the ban on
offering commercial services on the Interstate right-of-way, including
the recently enacted IIJA.
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 added a narrow
exception for vending machines, with a priority given for such machines
operated by blind business owners pursuant to Randolph-Sheppard.\6\
This provision provided meaningful support to the blind community
without undercutting the commercialization ban's underlying purpose of
protecting off-highway communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ P.L. 97-424, enacted Jan. 6, 1983, at 96 Stat. 2106
[hereinafter the ``Vending Machine Exception''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Vending Machine Exception directs that:
``Such vending machines may only dispense such food, drink, and
other articles as the State transportation department
determines are appropriate and desirable [emphasis added].''
Congress approved the Vending Machine Exception with the intent
that vending machines would offer limited food and beverage products,
or other tangible articles, and that the exception would not undercut
the general prohibition on offering commercial services, including
automotive (i.e., refueling) services, at Interstate rest areas.
III. The Vending Machine Exception is for Incidental Products
The Vending Machine Exception was created to allow motorists to
purchase incidental products at rest areas. When the exception was
enacted, vending machines only provided snack food and beverage
products such as candy bars, potato chips, and canned or bottled
beverages. These types of products are incidental; the public would not
stop at rest areas with the sole purpose of buying such products from
vending machines. Instead, motorists stopping at the rest area for a
different purpose (i.e., to stretch or use the restroom) will purchase
something from a vending machine upon arrival. Were more robust food
offerings to be made available, such as sit-down or take-out
restaurants, motorists would bypass the vending machines and elect to
purchase those options, undercutting nearby off-highway businesses and
communities in addition to the vending machine operations of blind
merchants at rest areas.
Purchasing incidental products at a rest area merely supplements
the motorist's brief stop; it poses no threat to off-highway businesses
and localities. Off-highway businesses have continued to thrive in the
time the Vending Machine Exception has been in place. Had Congress
provided a broader exception to the rest area commercialization ban
(such as encouraging motorists to stop at the rest area with the
primary purpose of automotive services or purchasing food), it would
have effectively overturned the Interstate rest area commercialization
ban, undercutting off-highway businesses and localities. The Vending
Machine Exception therefore must be limited to items that do not
directly compete with off-highway businesses and localities so that the
exception does not swallow the broader prohibition against
commercializing the Interstate right-of-way.
IV. The Vending Machine Exception Does Not Allow for EV Charging
Statute is unambiguously clear that the Vending Machine Exception
is not a mechanism to allow EV charging infrastructure in the
Interstate right-of-way. Such a change in policy requires an act of
Congress. As noted above, Congress recently considered, and rejected,
this change in policy.
The Vending Machine Exception allows vending machines located along
the Interstate right-of-way to ``dispense food, drink, and other
articles as the State transportation department determines are
appropriate and desirable.'' The Federal Highway Administration defined
vending machines in policy guidance issued in 1992 as follows:
``A vending machine is a coin or currency operated machine
capable of automatically dispending an article or product.''
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aid Policy Guide--Non-
Regulatory Supplement. Transmittal 6: Vending Machines in Interstate
Rest Areas and Abandonment of Interstate Rest Areas (Oct. 5, 1992)
available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/right-of-way/
policy_and_guidance/0752sup.cfm. This definition is virtually identical
to the Department of Education's definition of ``vending machine''
under the Randolph-Sheppard Act. See 34 C.F.R. 395.1(y).
Both the law and long-standing agency-established definitions make
clear the intent behind the Vending Machine Exception is to provide
articles and products to motorists as they briefly stop at an
Interstate rest area. No reasonable interpretation of the law would
allow for EV charging infrastructure to fall under the definition of a
vending machine.
EV charging is an automotive service. Installing EV charging
infrastructure at an Interstate rest area would be akin to installing a
self-service gas pump in the same location. Both require a motorist to
insert currency into a machine that dispenses transportation energy to
refuel their vehicle. Congress made its intent clear in 1956 that
automotive service stations should not be located in the Interstate
right-of-way. This includes the electrified vehicles of today, just as
it has included vehicles that are fueled by other alternative fuels,
including biomass-based fuels and liquid hydrogen fuel.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 102 Congressional Record, Senate, May 29, 1956, at page
9207, adopting the amendment to prohibit ``automotive service stations
or other commercial establishments for serving motor vehicle users to
be constructed or located on the rights-of-way of the Interstate
System.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Installing EV Charging Infrastructure at Rest Areas Will Lead to
Broad Commercialization
The installation of EV charging infrastructure at Interstate rest
areas will lead to broad rest area commercialization. Motorists today
typically use the Interstate rest area to quickly use the restroom and
grab refreshments from the vending machines operated by blind business
owners before returning to their journey. If motorists stop at an
Interstate rest area to charge their vehicle, they will be required to
wait for 20-30 minutes without any of the services that a private
business might offer. Permitting EV charging at rest areas would
inevitably lead EV users, over time, demanding further erosion of the
commercialization ban to enable them to purchase food and beverages at
rest areas while they charge their vehicles.
VI. Implications for Private Sector EV Charging Investments
The Associations' members are actively engaging in the National
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (``NEVI'') grant program, which was
created under IIJA. The NEVI program has the potential to prompt
private sector investments that will enable recharging to look and feel
similar to the existing on-the-go refueling experience. Our industry
has invested heavily in the personnel necessary to navigate states'
different application processes and criteria, along with the
intellectual capital necessary to engage in opaque electricity markets
and regulatory regimes that were not designed to drive private capital
toward EV charging stations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Testimony of NATSO and SIGMA before the Subcommittee on
April 30, 2024, available at https://transportation.house.gov/
uploadedfiles/04-30-2024_ht_hearing_-_kim_okafor_-_testimony.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If EV charging were made available at rest areas, it would
undermine our industry's existing and prospective investments in EV
charging. It will also discourage future participation in federal EV
charging grant programs.
VII. Conclusion
We appreciate the opportunity to submit our concerns about DOT's
efforts with the Department of Education to expand the definition of
vending machine in the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program and
allow EV charging at Interstate rest areas. Our industry has
demonstrated to this Subcommittee its willingness to invest in whatever
refueling technology our customers want, including electricity.
Regulations such as the proposal to amend the Vending Machine Exception
will undermine off-highway businesses and communities and slow private
investment in alternative fuels.
Sincerely,
NATSO, Representing America's Travel Plazas and Truckstops.
SIGMA: America's Leading Fuel Marketers.
CC: The Honorable Sam Graves, Chairman, House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee
The Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, House Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee
Letter of July 23, 2024, 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
July 23, 2024.
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 Chair Crawford and Ranking Member Norton:
Thank you for convening tomorrow's hearing, ``Examining the
Department of Transportation's Regulatory and Administrative Agenda.''
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) respectfully requests
this letter be included in the hearing record.
Motor Vehicle Crashes are a Devastating and Costly Public Health Crisis
In 2022, an average of 116 people were killed every day on roads in
the U.S., totaling just over 42,500 fatalities.\i\ An additional 2.38
million people were injured.\ii\ This represents a 29 percent increase
in deaths in just a decade.\iii\ Early projections for 2023 traffic
fatalities remain at a similar historic high level; nearly 41,000
people are estimated to have died that year.\iv\ Tragically, 7,522
pedestrians and 1,105 bicyclists were killed in 2022, representing a 57
percent and 48 percent increase respectively in the past decade.\v\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ Overview of Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes in 2022, NHTSA, Apr.
2024, DOT HS 813 560. (Overview 2022).
\ii\ Overview 2022.
\iii\ Traffic Safety Facts 2021: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle
Crash Data, NHTSA, Dec. 2023, DOT HS 813 527, (Annual Report 2021); and
Overview 2022; [comparing 2013 to 2022].
\iv\ Traffic Safety Facts: Crash Stats, Early Estimate of Motor
Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2023, NHTSA, Apr. 2024, DOT HS 813 561.
\v\ Overview 2022; and Annual Report 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck crashes continue to cause exceedingly high loss of life and
injuries. In 2022, 5,936 people were killed and over 160,000 people
were injured in crashes involving large trucks.\vi\ Since 2009, which
was a historic low, the number of fatalities in large truck crashes has
increased by 76 percent.\vii\ In that same timespan, the number of
people injured in crashes involving large trucks increased by 117
percent.\viii\ In fatal two-vehicle crashes between a large truck and a
passenger motor vehicle, 96 percent of the fatalities were occupants of
the passenger vehicle.\ix\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\vi\ Overview 2022.
\vii\ Overview 2022 and Annual Report 2021. Note, the 76 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
2022, it increased by 27 percent.
\viii\ Overview 2022 and Annual Report 2021. Note, the 117 percent
figure represents the overall change in the number of people injured in
large truck involved crashes from 2009 to 2022. 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
2022, it increased by 19 percent.
\ix\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), Large Trucks.
See: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/large-
trucks#comparison-of-large-truck-and-passenger-vehicle-crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several leading behavioral issues continue to be leading factors in
traffic fatalities including alcohol-impairment, speeding and lack of
restraint use.\x\ Driver distraction is also known to be a principal
cause of motor vehicle crashes.\xi\ In 2022, alcohol-involved crashes
claimed the lives of 13,524 people, speeding-related traffic crashes
killed 12,151 people, and 11,302 people killed in crashes did not
buckle up, when restraint use was known.\xii\ This dangerous road
epidemic is predicated on dangerous roadway design (See 2024 Dangerous
by Design report). Additionally, in 2021, the most recent year for
which data is available according to the Non-Traffic Surveillance (NTS)
system, an estimated 3,990 people were killed in non-traffic motor
vehicle crashes, an increase of 26 percent from 2020.\xiii\ And, since
1990, at least 1,098 children have died in hot cars, including 14
children this year.\xiv\ These issues are persistent, and the solutions
are known and available, yet remain underused, underfunded, or
unregulated and therefore not required as standard equipment in
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\x\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2024, April).
Overview of motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2022 (Traffic Safety Facts
Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 813 560). National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
\xi\ Blincoe, L., Miller, T., Wang, J.-S., Swedler, D., Coughlin,
T., Lawrence, B., Guo, F., Klauer, S., & Dingus, T. (2023, February).
The economic and societal impact of motor vehicle crashes, 2019
(Revised) (Report No. DOT HS 813 403).
\xii\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2024, April).
Overview of motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2022 (Traffic Safety Facts
Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 813 560). National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
\xiii\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2024, April).
NonTraffic Surveillance: Fatality and injury statistics in non-traffic
crashes in 2021 (Report No. DOT HS 813 539). National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
\xiv\ 2024 Hot Car Deaths, Kids and Car Safety, available here:
https://www.kidsandcars.org/hot-cars/2024-deaths
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The financial impact of motor vehicle crashes on our economy and
our families is staggering. Conservatively, the annual economic cost of
motor vehicle crashes is approximately $340 billion (2019 dollars).\xv\
In comparison, the budget for the modal agencies within U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT) responsible for roadway safety in 2024 is only
a little more than 20 percent of that figure, at $74.8 billion.\xvi\
Essentially, every person living in the U.S. pays an annual ``crash
tax'' of over $1,000. These crashes negatively impact businesses as
well. According to the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety, the
total cost of crashes to employers is more than $72 billion (2019
dollars).\xvii\ Moreover, the total value of societal harm from motor
vehicle crashes in 2019 was nearly $1.4 trillion.\xviii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xv\ The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2019, NHTSA, Dec. 2022, DOT HS 813 403. (Economic and Societal Impact
2019).
\xvi\ U.S. DOT, FY 2025 Budget Highlights.
\xvii\ Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS), The Cost of
Motor Vehicle Crashes to Employers--2019, March 2021, prepared by Ted
R. Miller and A. Scott McKnight, Pacific Institute for Research and
Evaluation.
\xviii\ Economic and Societal Impact 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Safety Standards Have Saved Hundreds of Thousands of Lives
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
estimated that between 1960 and 2012, over 600,000 lives have been
saved by motor vehicle safety technologies.\xix\ Advocates always has
enthusiastically championed rulemaking for innovative vehicle safety
technologies shown to prevent injuries and deaths because it is
effective. In 1991, Advocates led the coalition that supported
enactment of the bipartisan Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 \xx\ which included a mandate for front
seat airbags as standard equipment. As a result, by 1997, every new car
sold in the United States was equipped with this technology and the
lives saved have been significant. Airbags have saved an estimated
50,457 lives from 1987 to 2017, according to NHTSA.\xxi\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xix\ Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety Technologies and Associated
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012, DOT HS 812 069
(NHTSA, 2015); See also, NHTSA AV Policy, Executive Summary, p. 5
endnote 1.
\xx\ Pub. L. 102-240 (Dec. 18, 1991). Statistics are from the U.S.
Department of Transportation unless otherwise noted.
\xxi\ Traffic Safety Facts 2018, A Compilation of Motor Vehicle
Crash Data, DOT HS 812 981, NHTSA (Nov. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates continued to support proven lifesaving technologies as
standard equipment in all vehicles in other federal legislation and
regulatory proposals. These efforts include: tire pressure monitoring
systems; \xxii\ rear outboard 3-point safety belts; \xxiii\ electronic
stability control; \xxiv\ rear safety belt reminder systems; \xxv\
brake transmission interlocks; \xxvi\ safety belts on motorcoaches;
\xxvii\ rear-view cameras; \xxviii\ safer power window switches; \xxix\
advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS); \xxx\ impaired driving
prevention technology; \xxxi\ enhanced vehicle hood and bumpers to
better protect vulnerable road users; \xxxii\ systems to address the
issue of unattended children in vehicles; \xxxiii\ and, advanced head
lamps.\xxxiv\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xxii\ Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation (TREAD) Act, Pub. L. 106-414 (Nov. 1, 2000).
\xxiii\ Anton's Law, Pub. L. 107-318 (Dec. 4, 2002).
\xxiv\ Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005).
\xxv\ Id.
\xxvi\ Id.
\xxvii\ Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act,
Pub. L. 112-141 (Jan. 3, 2012).
\xxviii\ Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007,
Pub. L. 110-189 (Feb. 28, 2008).
\xxix\ Id.
\xxx\ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. 117-58 (Nov.
15, 2021).
\xxxi\ Id.
\xxxii\ Id.
\xxxiii\ Id.
\xxxiv\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requiring proven safety technologies as standard equipment in
vehicles also promotes traffic safety equity for new car buyers, the
next generation of used car buyers, other vehicle occupants and road
users outside the vehicle when the rulemaking includes them, as it
should when applicable. Rulemaking accelerates fleet penetration and
amplifies the safety benefits of the technology while curbing its cost
due to economies of scale.
Advocates also publishes an annual Roadmap to Safety report. This
comprehensive tool provides a guide for communities, state
legislatures, governors, Congress, and the DOT on how to reverse the
trend of skyrocketing deaths and injuries on U.S. roads.
In stark contrast to the effectiveness of federal standards and
proven safety technology, voluntary agreements have been found to be
wholly ineffective. In fact, Congress rejected voluntary standards over
50 years ago when it passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act in 1966. As the Senate Committee Report stated, ``The
promotion of motor vehicle safety through voluntary standards has
largely failed. The unconditional imposition of mandatory standards at
the earliest practicable date is the only course commensurate with the
highway death and injury toll.'' \xxxv\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xxxv\ Committee Report on S. 3005, The Traffic Safety Act of 1966,
June 23, 1966, at 271, 273, 274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voluntary agreements typically produce weak, limited outcomes that
do not represent the best practices and state-of-the-art technology or
systems. For example, the voluntary agreement announced by automakers
in September 2019 on technology to prevent hot car deaths of children
prolonged the timeline to get this equipment into new cars even though
it is available at a very minimal cost now.\xxxvi\ The agreement also
failed to include the important component that the systems must detect
and alert to the presence of children who have been unknowingly left in
or gained access to hot cars.\xxxvii\ Over two decades ago, in April
2001, General Motors (GM) announced it would equip its new cars with
technology that ``can detect motion as subtle as the breathing of an
infant sleeping in a rear-facing child safety seat'' with the intent to
begin rollout in 2004.\xxxviii\ Yet, to date GM, and most other
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), still do not equip vehicles
with such a safety system, and systems it does install only monitor the
vehicle's rear doors instead of using a sensor to detect the presence
of a child. In fact, Kids and Car Safety has documented hot cars
incidents involving seven children who have died in vehicles equipped
with door sequencing features.\xxxix\ Since 1990, nearly 1,100 children
have died in hot car incidents and at least another 7,500 survived with
varying types and severities of injuries, according to data collected
by Kids and Car Safety.\xl\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xxxvi\ Leading Automakers' Commitment to Implement Rear Seat
Reminder Systems, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. and
Association of Global Automakers, Inc. (Sep. 2019).
\xxxvii\ Id.
\xxxviii\ General Motors News Release, ``General Motors Announces
Important New Technology to Help Save Children Trapped in Hot Cars,''
(April 26, 2001).
\xxxix\ Information documented by Kids and Cars Safety available
at: https://www.kidsandcars.org/document_center/download/Hot-car-
deaths-in-vehicles-with-end-of-trip-reminder-alerts.pdf
\xl\ 2024 Hot Car Deaths, Kids and Car Safety, available here:
https://www.kidsandcars.org/hot-cars/2024-deaths
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently, the U.S. DOT issued a Final Rule on automatic
emergency braking (AEB) for light vehicles which supports this
position, ``Voluntary measures are intended to supplement rather than
substitute for the FMVSSs, which remain NHTSA's core method of ensuring
that all motor vehicles can achieve an adequate level of safety
performance.'' \xli\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xli\ 89 FR 39686 (May 9, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Must be Implemented
with Expediency and Thoroughness
Commonsense solutions were advanced by this Subcommittee during the
consideration of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA).\xlii\ These include provisions and robust appropriation levels
to advance the Safe System Approach (SSA) and Complete Streets policy
which undertake a holistic method to improve safety for all in the
roadway environment. Vehicle safety technology and roadway
infrastructure improvements designed to upgrade safety have great
potential to complement each other, ensure redundancy and save lives.
For example, the IIJA authorizes safety upgrades to the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) which will help to protect vulnerable road
users, such as infrastructure features that calm traffic and reduce
vehicle speeds, separate road users to minimize conflicts, and deter
dangerous driving. It also includes provisions requiring AEB for
passenger motor vehicles and large trucks.\xliii\ According to the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), AEB has the capability
to reduce car front-to-rear crashes with injuries by 56 percent and
large truck front-to-rear crashes by 41 percent.\xliv\ NHTSA estimates
that requiring AEB on light vehicles will save at least 362 lives and
mitigate 24,321 non-fatal injuries annually.\xlv\ In addition to
curbing the physical and emotional toll on families, the ripple effect
of crash reductions is wide-ranging and results in less damage to
infrastructure, less congestion caused by crashes, less crash related
costs, and less expenditure of first responder and health care
resources, among others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xlii\ Pub. L. 117-58 (2021).
\xliii\ Pub. L. 117-58, Sec. 24208 (2021).
\xliv\ IIHS, Real World Benefits of Crash Avoidance Technologies
(Dec. 2020).
\xlv\ 89 FR 39686, 39687 (May 9, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Advocates lauds NHTSA for issuing a Final Rule earlier this
year that requires passenger vehicles be equipped with an AEB system
that detects pedestrians, the agency must promptly complete the
rulemaking requiring AEB on heavy vehicles as well as other required
rules to save lives and meet the deadlines set by Congress.\xlvi\ These
include rulemakings involving advanced impaired driving technology;
systems to address the issue of unattended children in vehicles leading
to pediatric heatstroke; technology to curb driver distraction and
automation complacency; lane departure warning and lane keeping assist
systems; adaptive driving beam headlamps; upgrades to hoods and bumpers
to better protect vulnerable road user safety; updates to the New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP); seat belts for limousine passengers;
strengthening seatback safety standards; and, automatic shutoff and
keyless ignition systems. Additionally, numerous safety rulemakings
mandated by Congress in laws preceding the IIJA are exceedingly
overdue.\xlvii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xlvi\ 89 FR 39686 (May 9, 2024).
\xlvii\ See Attachment A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Safety Solutions Must be Advanced
Several bills introduced in this Congress would help address the
unacceptable death and injury toll on our Nation's roads and should be
enacted without delay. These include: Complete Streets Act (S. 3670/
H.R. 7082); DOT Victim and Survivor Advocate Act (H.R. 8349); End DWI
Act (H.R. 8213); Pedestrian Hazard, Awareness and Safety Expansion
(PHASE) Act (HR 6111); Save Our Pedestrians Act of 2024 (H.R. 7191);
She Develops Regulations In Vehicle Equality and Safety (She DRIVES)
Act; and, Sarah Debbink Langenkamp Active Transportation Safety Act (S.
3964/ H.R. 1668).
Congress should take additional actions to address the public
safety crisis on our Nation's roads. The IIJA permitted federal funding
for automated enforcement (speed and red-light cameras) in work and
school zones.\xlviii\ Congress should include high injury networks and
continue to encourage the use of this technology to address dangerous
driving behaviors. Further, drugged impaired driving poses a
significant threat to roadway users. Establishing roadside testing
technology, accelerating research to determine a causal link and a
standard for cannabis impaired driving, and substantial funding for law
enforcement training can all help to address this deeply concerning and
growing issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xlviii\ Pub. L. 117-58, Sec. 24102 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, several misguided measures introduced in this
Congress would harm public safety and thus, should not become law.
These include: the MOVE Act (HR 7496); Safer Highways and Increased
Performance for Interstate Trucking (SHIP IT) Act (H.R. 471); Ceasing
Age-Based (CAB) Trucking Restrictions Act (H.R. 267); Deregulating
Restrictions on Interstate Vehicles and Eighteen Wheelers (DRIVE) Act
(H.R. 3039); Licensing Individual Commercial Exam-takers Now Safely and
Efficiently (LICENSE) Act (S. 1649/ H.R. 3013); Safe Routes Act of 2023
(S. 1818 /H.R. 2493); proposed 91,000 lb. pilot program for commercial
trucks (HR 3372); and, Sections 131-134 and an adopted amendment (Clyde
En Bloc) in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2025 (H.R. 9028).
Conclusion
Thank you for your consideration of these crucial issues. 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: The Honorable Sam Graves, Chair, U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
The Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Letter of July 18, 2024, 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
Institute for Safer Trucking and Road Safe America, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
July 18, 2024.
The Honorable Sam Graves,
Chair,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives.
The Honorable Rick Larsen,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives.
The Honorable Rick Crawford,
Chair,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Dear Chairs Graves and Crawford and Ranking Members Larsen and
Holmes Norton,
We write to express our serious concerns regarding the Department
of Transportation's (DOT) continued delay in implementing two critical
rulemakings essential for improving truck safety on our nation's roads:
the requirement for automatic emergency braking (AEB) on all new large
trucks, and the mandate for speed limiters in large trucks weighing
26,001 pounds or more.
These delays could not have come at a worse time. In 2022 alone,
truck crash fatalities reached a staggering total of 5,936 and injuries
exceeded 160,000. These alarming figures continue a trend of worsening
truck safety since 2009. Unfortunately, the DOT has continued their
troubling trend of inaction and delay.
The pushback of the AEB rule for large trucks is extremely
troubling. Congress recognized the necessity of this safety technology
when they mandated its use as part of the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA) in 2021. By reducing impact speeds or preventing the
crash entirely, AEB could be the difference between life and death in
instances of driver fatigue, distraction, and impairment.
In addition, the DOT has been deliberating on the implementation of
a heavy vehicle speed limiter rule since petitioned in 2006, so it
strains the credibility of the agency that the government has had
insufficient time to move this rule forward. Speed limiters are a vital
and proven tool in ensuring that large trucks operate at safe speeds,
which directly aligns with one of the five pillars of the
Administration's Safe System Approach: Safer Speeds.
The DOT's inaction not only is counter to their own Safe System
Approach, but more alarmingly puts the lives of countless Americans at
risk. It is imperative that we hold the DOT accountable for these
delays and urge them to expedite the rulemaking processes for both AEB
systems and speed limiters in large trucks.
We respectfully urge the Subcommittee to question the DOT on the
reasons behind these delays and to advocate for the swift
implementation of these critical safety measures. The lives lost to
truck crashes are not just statistics; they are beloved family members,
friends, and community members whose deaths could be prevented with
timely and effective regulatory action.
Thank you for your attention to this pressing issue and for your
commitment to improving truck safety on our nation's highways.
Sincerely,
Institute for Safer Trucking.
Road Safe America.
Appendix
----------
Question from Hon. Dina Titus to Tim Duit, President, Duit Construction
Company, Inc.; on behalf of the American Road & Transportation Builders
Association (ARTBA)
Question 1. Your testimony notes that roughly 900 fatalities occur
in and around transportation construction worksites every year. Unlike
most transportation projects, infrastructure solutions to protect work
zones are not permanent and need to take into account the temporary and
often mobile nature of a roadway construction site. Furthermore, a tow
truck driver is killed every six days due to the dangers they face on
the front lines. That's why I have been a longtime supporter of a House
resolution, which passed out of this Committee, to promote ``move
over'' laws.
For construction workers, what specific types of projects or safety
interventions should Congress consider funding to reduce fatalities and
ensure a safe workplace?
Answer. The safety and welfare for all those who work or travel on
America's transportation network are the highest priorities for the
American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA).
Safety efforts are part of--and must be aligned with--a
comprehensive approach that includes operations, maintenance, education
and emergency response efforts. Congress can play an important role in
protecting roadway workers by implementation of the following
initiatives:
1. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act placed a significant
emphasis on protecting ``vulnerable road users'' or VRUs. Subsequently,
the U.S. Department of Transportation has required states to include
protections for VRUs in their state Strategic Highway Safety Plans
(SHSP). While roadway workers are by definition VRUs, very little
recognition is being given to them on the SHSPs. Congress could provide
more direct support for worker protection as VRUs.
2. We have seen significant improvements to pedestrian safety in
school zones thanks to the use of speed safety cameras and increased
law enforcement. Congress should consider more aggressive support for
these applications in roadway work zones, as well.
3. Congress created the National Work Zone Safety Information
Clearinghouse to create improved information and communication about
the need for work zone safety. The resources devoted to the operation
have dwindled and not kept up with inflation. Increased funding for the
Clearinghouse, particularly focused on driver awareness and speed
compliance, is needed to keep pace with the increasing numbers of work
zone related fatalities and injuries.
4. The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) should remain
focused on infrastructure safety activities, while also supporting
collaborative safety strategies and worker protection.
5. Positive protection, wherein a physical barrier divides a work
zone from traffic in specific situations, is an effective means of
worker protection. Congress should consider policies that include clear
definitions and more consistent application of positive protection to
encourage its greater use on highway construction projects.
6. Congress should support efforts to study and address mental
health rates in the U.S. construction industry. Currently, suicides in
the industry are more than four times the national average. Devoting
resources to improving total worker health is also important to
ensuring a safe workplace.
Questions from Hon. Steve Cohen to William ``Lewie'' Pugh, Executive
Vice President, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Question 1. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
directed the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to implement rules
on rear and side underride guards. OOIDA has expressed strong
opposition toward these devices.
Considering the physical size and weight mismatch between
commercial motor vehicles and passenger vehicles, as well as between
commercial motor vehicles and vulnerable road users, how does OOIDA
propose to address the gory dangers of underride accidents without
placing all responsibility on victims?
Answer. This question unfortunately demonstrates a major disregard
for the safety of truckers, who are also victims of underride crashes.
Truckers are not immune to serious injury or death in an underride
crash simply because they are operating larger and heavier vehicles. In
fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, operating a
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) is one of the top 10 most dangerous
occupations for Americans. We are disappointed a long-time member of
the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee doesn't better
appreciate the safety risks our members face when they are involved in
collisions of any kind.
Your question erroneously states IIJA ``directed the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) to implement rules on rear and side
underride guards'' [emphasis added]. While IIJA included an enhanced
rear underride guard requirement, which OOIDA supported, the bill only
required additional research and feasibility assessments involving side
underride guards. The legislation provided DOT the opportunity to
develop performance standards only ``if warranted'', but by no means
directed DOT to implement any rules on side underride guards.
This is an important distinction to make, as DOT was also directed
to provide your Committee with a determination as to whether the
Secretary intended to develop performance requirements following the
additional research and assessment. DOT deferred this determination
until it received recommendations from the Advisory Committee on
Underride Protection (ACUP) and completed an analysis of the comments
received on its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). While
all these factors have been completed, DOT has not advanced the
rulemaking. Considering the department has a long history of declining
to pursue such mandates due to their inherent impracticality and
analyses that consistently show costs would dramatically outweigh
safety benefits, coupled with the defective and clearly biased final
report produced by the ACUP's `majority' members, we anticipate DOT
will ultimately determine performance standards remain unwarranted.
We likely agree CMVs are involved in crashes with passenger
vehicles at an unacceptable rate, but it's important to remember the
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance estimates 70% of these crashes are
caused by the passenger vehicle driver. Therefore, it stands to reason
passenger vehicle drivers are likely responsible for an even larger
portion of underride crashes due to the nature of these accidents. When
discussing the responsibility for reducing underride crashes, we
believe stakeholders must better prioritize safety policies targeting
those most commonly responsible for collisions. We find it remarkable
that leading proponents of side underride guard mandates remain focused
almost exclusively on unproven, impractical, and cost-prohibitive crash
mitigation proposals, with little to no attention paid to preventing
underride crashes from occurring in the first place.
This glaring oversight is perfectly illustrated by the ACUP's
`majority report'. In IIJA, Congress explicitly directed ACUP to
``provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary on safety
regulations to reduce underride crashes and fatalities relating to
underride crashes'' [emphasis added]. Unfortunately, the `majority'
members of ACUP were so predisposed to produce a report that featured a
side underride guard mandate they nearly forgot about the first
objective you prescribed entirely--reducing underride crashes. For
example, the `majority report' says nothing about the need to improve
passenger vehicle driver training, especially involving how to safely
share the road with CMVs, and only recommends flashing light mandates
for trailers when addressing the growing problem of distracted driving,
which is unquestionably insufficient. Considering these proponents have
continuously reached legislative and regulatory dead-ends in their
quest to impose a clearly unworkable and ineffective mandate, we find
their lack of interest in crash prevention solutions striking.
Question 2. The Advisory Committee on Underride Prevention was
convened to advise the DOT on underride crashes, but it appears that
the only proposal that the ``majority'' and ``minority'' agreed on was
that more research and analysis are required.
How can Congress help encourage parties with such divergent
opinions to reach actionable conclusions?
Answer. First, Congress is unquestionably responsible for the
failure of the ACUP. Over our objections, you deliberately authorized
an unbalanced panel of stakeholders and tasked them with reaching
consensus on ways to reduce underride crashes and fatalities related to
them. At the time, we warned that purposely granting such an advantage
to biased, inexperienced, and unqualified advocates would jeopardize
the panel's ability to achieve its mission of developing a concise,
data-driven report that garnered consensus support among participants
and stakeholders.
ACUP conducted a series of public meetings on various underride
topics beginning in May 2023. Over the course of these meetings, ACUP
predictably failed to work in a collaborative and consensus-driven
fashion. Safety advocacy representatives brazenly manipulated their
numerical advantage in membership to approve a motion to redefine
``consensus'' as a simple majority that minimized opposing viewpoints
of other ACUP participants. As a result, the Committee was forced to
produce a `majority' report and a dissenting `minority' report along
with individual letters of concurrence and/or non-concurrence rather
than a single, unified document. This represents a complete and total
failure of the `majority' members to follow crystal clear Congressional
direction. If these advocates can't be compelled by a sympathetic
Congress to work in a collaborative manner to achieve their goals, we
struggle to understand why you're asking truckers how parties with such
divergent opinions can reach actionable conclusions.
If you genuinely want to develop solutions supported by diverse
stakeholders, our advice is you stop pacifying and empowering those who
not only continue to display an open hostility to collaboration with
industry, but have gone so far as to redefine the term ``consensus'' to
advance their single-minded objectives.
OOIDA recognizes that both truckers and the driving public share
responsibility for reducing underride crashes, as well as potential
injuries and fatalities resulting from them. Demonstrating this, our
2019 letter to you outlining our priorities for surface transportation
reauthorization (ultimately IIJA), explained, ``we support the
establishment of an enhanced rear underride guard on the manufacture of
new trailers''. Our support for this requirement was rooted in the fact
the equipment would improve safety in a cost-effective manner, without
presenting operational challenges or safety concerns for truckers.
Enhanced rear guards are a reality today because all stakeholders
agreed their installation was a practical solution. Clearly, there are
opportunities for stakeholders to work together to improve underride
safety.
Questions from Hon. Steve Cohen to Beth Osborne, Director,
Transportation for America (T4America)
Question 1. Over 22,000 students take school buses in Memphis,
Tennessee, and most walk to school bus stops. Unfortunately, the city
tops the list of those that are Dangerous by Design for pedestrians.
Furthermore, laws defining illegal passing around school buses and
stop-arm violations vary from state to state and are not consistently
enforced.
Question 1.a. How can roads be designed to support the safety of
students when they get on and off school buses?
Question 1.b. How can we invest in school bus safety while
balancing other priorities like increasing accessibility or minimizing
congestion?
Answer to 1.a. & 1.b. My organization has been writing about the
need for changes to street design for a long time--the first edition of
Dangerous by Design came out in 2009. Despite the discouraging trends
in pedestrian safety, our message remains consistent. In order to make
environments safer for people walking, we need to actually change our
environments. The data are clear that improving street design to slow
cars, reduce conflict points, and provide proper and consistent
infrastructure for pedestrians is the only way we'll move the needle on
safety.
This is the point of Vision Zero: roadway design impacts behavior,
and high speed is only appropriate on a separated roadway, not around
cross streets, stopping vehicles, pedestrians, and especially school
children.
Streets that are designed for speed enable, if not outright
encourage, reckless driving behavior. And these are the places where
people are killed while walking, biking, and rolling. In the same way
that we know what design interventions can save lives, we know what
street designs contribute to the rising fatalities. A driver traveling
45 mph on an arterial road will find it hard to see the arm on the bus
go up and react in time to stop for the school children crossing. That
is because the road is not designed for stops: it is designed like a
highway and drivers react appropriately. On some level we know this, so
enforcement seems unfair, as the roadway design is unfair, setting the
driver up to make an error.
If we want a child to be safe on the street when they get off the
school bus, streets need to be redesigned and repurposed to provide
safe, accessible, and convenient places for people walking. Using
medians, curb extensions, and pedestrian refuge islands can achieve
this while simultaneously delivering important cues to drivers on how
to safely navigate the space. FHWA has really good guidance on
pedestrian safety countermeasures. We know what to do. We don't do it
because people fear it will lead to slower vehicle movement and
congestion, which is a higher priority than the safety of the people
using the transportation system. We are going to have to face and own
it or reckon with it if we want different results.
What is interesting is that the U.S. is terrible at providing
smooth, convenient, predictable auto travel. Trip lengths have
increased across the board and congestion is far worse today than 30
years ago. Congestion isn't even the right goal, access to jobs and
essential services is the point. If people could get where they needed
to go in 10 minutes with traffic or in 50 minutes with no traffic,
almost everyone would choose the former (and the latter is vastly more
expensive). Access to jobs and essential services (schools, groceries,
banks, etc.) can be addressed by improving vehicle movement, transit
service, walking and biking or economic development (build more jobs
and stores, and build some closer to people that don't have them close
by). The choice isn't congestion v. safety: it is speedy vehicles v.
safety with better access to the things we need.
Questions from Hon. Colin Z. Allred to Beth Osborne, Director,
Transportation for America (T4America)
Question 1. Ms. Osborne, you're likely aware that Artificial
Intelligence, or AI, has emerged as a useful tool across all industries
including in the transportation sector. In fact, in May 2024, DOT
published a request for information on the ``Opportunities and
Challenges of Artificial Intelligence in Transportation.'' Are you
concerned about the impacts of potential AI regulations on the
transportation sector? How can we ensure appropriate regulation without
suppressing innovation?
Answer. Artificial Intelligence in transportation, like many new
tools and technologies, has the power to transform the way we travel,
the efficiency of the transportation system and how our communities are
designed. However, if we want any tool or technology to accomplish a
particular goal, we need a policy that steers it in that way. Tools
have no capacity to deliver any particular outcome without that policy.
Automobiles were the new technology a century ago and yet the
transportation system varies across U.S. cities and the world, based on
how that tool was deployed.
My organization is currently using AI to evaluate how federal
funding under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) will
impact GHG emissions. AI allows us to go through 50,000 projects with a
small staff. We will use that same technology to see how current
spending will affect the state of repair of our roads and bridges among
other outcomes. AI can help us determine how many places people can
reach by all modes of travel too. But the AI does not inherently know
that this is the goal.
Many have concerns about the safety of AI in vehicles, both in
terms of hacking and the vehicle operating in a way that endangers
people in and around those vehicles. I have to leave the issue of
hacking to others. But in terms of safety, I fear that we program the
AI to prioritize vehicle movement, just as we have in all other rules,
designs and procedures. As a result, our current transportation system
is the most unsafe in the developed world (by a lot)--and yet we have
all the technologies that others with much safer roads do. Without a
change in our policies and designs, AI will likely help us build more
of what we have been building with more of the same results, but
faster.
Recognizing that, it seems safe to proceed carefully, testing the
impact of AI deployment. It is not as if we are risking holding back an
outcome that only AI can identify or know. It is our job to test how
well it works in enacting our priorities rather than test every
possible application without a sense of what we are trying to
accomplish.
My concern is that, in AI (and in automation more generally),
people see what they want to see. For some, an automated vehicle is a
way to give more people access to a private automobile; while for
others, it is a way to reduce the number of cars on the road. Though
contradictory, both sides see the future they wish for. AI as the
Rorshak test of transportation futures.
AI will only produce the outcomes we want to the extent we deploy
it to do so. And that brings us to the core of the problem with our
transportation system: our national transportation policy is,
currently, to send money to the states to build transportation things.
Throughout my career, we have been able to agree on little more. AI
will not chose our priorities for us. We have to do that.
Questions from Hon. Dina Titus to Beth Osborne, Director,
Transportation for America (T4America)
Question 1. In 2022, 235 people were killed on roads in Clark
County, Nevada, with 85 of those deaths resulting from excessive
speeding. The Department of Transportation has listed safer speeds as a
top objective of its National Roadway Safety Strategy.
DOT has also proposed additional actions to mitigate fatalities
from high speeds, but what more can the administration be doing to
protect all road users?
Answer. Speeding is incredibly dangerous, but we forget in the
country that many legal speeds are just as dangerous. Sixty-three
percent of pedestrians--nearly two-thirds--are killed on roads posted
for speeds of under 50 mph. These roads are often in busy activity
centers that lack sufficient protection for people on foot.
Fundamentally what this country gets wrong is thinking we can have
highway speeds in areas with lots of conflict points--driveways, cross
streets, on-street parking and vulnerable users. We knew when we built
the Interstates that this was impossible which is why we built the
Interstates with managed entrances and exits and no development
adjacent, cross streets, driveways or vulnerable users. Now we design
the danger right in and this is allowed by federal rules and adopted
design guides, like the MUTCD and AASHTO Green Book. FHWA does not need
to adopt standards and guides that permit dangerous conditions. In
fact, they should do the opposite.
As Chris McCahill stated in a guest post in our latest Dangerous by
Design report, ``Preventing pedestrian deaths requires a paradigm shift
in thinking about traffic speeds and road design. In major activity
centers and anywhere people might be walking, speeds above 30 mph pose
an exponentially greater risk. That means it is not just the
responsibility of drivers to obey speed limits, but it is also up to
road designers to set appropriate target speeds that both support lower
limits and encourage slower driving.'' (emphasis added)
If we want people to drive the speed limit, we need to design our
roadways in a way that makes that speed limit the easiest speed to
travel. Current practice is to design roadways for 10-15 mph higher
than the posted speed limit, assuming that people will speed. And that
is exactly what we get. If we want people to travel a safe speed then
we need to set safe speed limits and then design for that speed.
Some specific strategies for speed management that USDOT
recommends:
Developing and implementing jurisdiction-wide speed
management programs and plans.
Outlining how to set safe, consistent, and enforceable
speed limits based on the presence of all road users and context and
not just drivers' operating speeds.
Applying proven safety countermeasures to help achieve
safe speeds for the safety of all roadway users.
Improving crash data report forms with targeted reporting
of speeding-related crashes that provides consistency and focuses on
identifying contributing factors.
Deploying enforcement through transparent high-visibility
activities, educational programs, and awareness campaigns rather than a
strictly enforcement focus.
Considering equity in speed management decision making.
The Vision Zero approach is: the faster the traffic, the more
separated the roadway needs to be from oncoming traffic and conflicts.
That means high speed roadways need to be fully separated from the
community, and roadways in the community need to be slow. The in-
between is the unsafe zone where the United States lives and we get
predictable results. As Strong Towns says, our roads are the
transportation equivalent of a futon, which is not a particularly good
bed or sofa. Our roadways designed to try to do everything are not
particularly good at moving traffic swiftly or serving the local
community effectively and safely. FHWA could require the community it
funds to choose one of the safe options (fast and separated or slow and
integrated), but it would be easier with Congressional direction and
backing. Sadly, I do not think that is forthcoming on either side of
the aisle.
Question 2. Transportation remains the largest economic sector
creating carbon pollution in the United States.
Why is it important for states to calculate emissions and set
targets to understand their impact on climate change?
Answer. You can only address what you measure. My organization
covers the importance of measuring the performance of the
transportation system in terms of climate in Driving Down Emissions.
The U.S. simply will not meet our transportation climate goals if we
don't know where the problems are, but it is clear that many people do
not want us to address emissions from vehicles, whether we are talking
about greenhouse gas emissions or criteria pollutants that harm human
health (and they tend to go together).
Beyond that, Congress is taking hundreds of billions of the
American taxpayers' hard earned money, and those taxpayers deserve to
know what they are getting for it. Nothing should be hidden from them.
I am reminded of a quote from the musical ``1776'' when Stephen Hopkins
is told he is the deciding vote on whether the Continental Congress
will debate a resolution on independence: ``Well, I'll tell you, in all
my years, I never seen, heard, nor smelled an issue that was so
dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yes, I'm for debating
anything!'' That is how I feel about measuring the impacts of
transportation. I have never seen, heard or smelled an issue that was
so dangerous it couldn't be measured and reported to the taxpayer. And
I look with suspicion on anyone who is not willing to do so, much less
block this information. Hell yes, I'm for measuring anything!
[all]