[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPLEMENTING MAP-21: PROGRESS REPORT
FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MODAL ADMINISTRATORS
=======================================================================
(113-6)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 14, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-896 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Columbia
Vice Chair JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida JANICE HAHN, California
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TOM RICE, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
TREY RADEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
VACANCY
(ii)
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
JOHN L. MICA, Florida MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
GARY G. MILLER, California GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
SAM GRAVES, Missouri TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
DUNCAN HUNTER, California ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas JANICE HAHN, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin, Vice ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
Chair LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
STEVE DAINES, Montana CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
TOM RICE, South Carolina NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma (Ex Officio)
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Hon. Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration................................................. 5
Hon. Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration................................................. 5
Hon. Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration................................................. 5
Hon. David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.......................................... 5
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Thomas E. Petri, of Wisconsin............................... 50
Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II, of West Virginia........................ 58
PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED
BY WITNESSES
Hon. Victor M. Mendez:
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Answers to questions from the following Representatives:
Hon. Thomas E. Petri, of Wisconsin........................... 68
Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., of Tennessee....................... 70
Hon. Gary G. Miller, of California........................... 71
Hon. Lou Barletta, of Pennsylvania........................... 72
Hon. Tom Rice, of South Carolina............................. 72
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, of Texas......................... 76
Hon. Peter M. Rogoff:
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Hon. Anne S. Ferro:
Prepared statement........................................... 85
Answers to questions from the following Representatives:
Hon. Thomas E. Petri, of Wisconsin........................... 90
Hon. Andre Carson, of Indiana................................ 91
Hon. Jerrold Nadler, of New York............................. 93
Hon. Markwayne Mullin, of Oklahoma........................... 94
Hon. David L. Strickland:
Prepared statement........................................... 96
Answers to questions from the following Representative:
Hon. Jerrold Nadler, of New York............................. 100
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration, list of FTA projects and funding levels........ 25
Hon. Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, 5 inserts for the record...........31, 36 (2), 38, 44
ADDITION TO THE RECORD
Cynthia Hilton, Executive Vice President, Institute of Makers of
Explosives, written statement.................................. 103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79896.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79896.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79896.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79896.004
IMPLEMENTING MAP-21: PROGRESS REPORT
FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION MODAL ADMINISTRATORS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Petri. The subcommittee will come to order. Our Senior
Minority Member, Mr. DeFazio, I know is here. I saw him in the
hall a minute ago, so I think he will be here in plenty of time
to make his statement.
I should just note that we appreciate the good work that
you and your staff did in preparing the statements and that you
will be doing your best to summarize them in approximately 5
minutes or so. There was a delay in the receipt of one or two
of the statements, and I understand it is not anyone's fault in
The Department, that OMB was a little slow in reviewing the
testimony. And we join with you in urging them to do it in a
timely fashion, because it enables staff and Members to do a
better job of reviewing your testimony and preparing to ask
questions, and so it is an important part of the process to do
things in a timely manner.
Today's hearing will focus on oversight of the Department
of Transportation's implementation of the law Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century, better known as MAP-21. MAP-21
was signed into law by the President on July 6th, 2012, and
authorizes the Federal Highway Transit and Highway Safety
Programs through September 30th of 2014. It consolidated or
eliminated over 70 Federal programs that were duplicative.
These changes provide greater focus on the core national
systems and give States greater flexibility to meet their
transportation needs.
MAP-21 also started the process of holding States and
transit agencies accountable for their funding decisions.
States and transit agencies, in conjunction with metropolitan
planning organizations, will have to incorporate performance
measures into their long-term transportation plans. These
performance measures will help States and transit agencies
focus their limited Federal resources on projects that have the
greatest benefit.
MAP-21 made major reforms and improvements to the project
delivery process. It currently can take almost 14 years for a
transportation project to be completed if Federal funding is
involved. This is unacceptable. Some of the MAP-21 reforms
include allowing Federal agencies to review projects
concurrently, penalties for agencies that don't meet project
review deadlines, and expanded categorical exclusions for
projects in the existing right-of-way or with limited Federal
investment. These reforms will help cut bureaucratic red tape
and quickly deliver the economic and safety benefits of
transportation projects.
MAP-21 also created a program to provide relief for public
transportation systems that were affected by a natural disaster
or catastrophic failure. Previously, transit agencies had to
work through FEMA to replace equipment or rebuild their systems
after a disaster, but after Hurricane Katrina, transit agencies
sought an emergency program similar to the Emergency Relief
Program operated at Federal Highways Administration. This
program was recently utilized by States and communities that
were affected by Hurricane Sandy.
Numerous trucking safety provisions were included in MAP-
21, which reflects Congress' commitment to keeping truckers and
the traveling public safe. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration is tasked with implementing new regulations on
electronic logging devices, hazardous materials, safety
permits, a drug and alcohol clearing house, and motor carrier
registration requirements related to unsafe reincarnated
carriers. These regulations will keep drivers safe while
maximizing the efficiency of the trucking industry.
Congress recognized that new challenges have emerged
affecting highway safety. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration is required to implement a national priority
safety program that incentivizes States to pass and enforce
laws that address important safety issues. The program focuses
on impaired driving countermeasures, occupant protection,
motorcycle safety, distracted driving, and graduated driver's
licensing.
These reforms are only part of the sweeping changes made in
MAP-21, and I look forward to hearing from the Administrators
on how their agencies are implementing the reforms that I have
highlighted and others that we will include in MAP-21.
Now I would recognize Ranking Member DeFazio for an opening
statement, should he care to make one.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I
want to hear from the witnesses here before us today. In the
last Congress, MAP-21 was one of the few products of any note,
and it did provide for essentially a status quo continuation of
our existing service transportation programs; however, as we
know from numerous commission reports and reports from the
American Society of Civil Engineers and others, that level of
investment is inadequate. Our systems are deteriorating more
quickly than we are repairing them and we are failing to
undertake major new initiatives to get people out of
congestion, make the country more competitive in the world, and
we are lagging far, far, far behind our international
competitors, who realize the importance of investing in
transportation, moving goods and people more efficiently.
It has been, you know, a given since the founding of the
Nation, George Washington with canals, Abraham Lincoln with
railroads, Dwight David Eisenhower with highways, and Ronald
Reagan incorporating transit into the Highway Trust Fund, that
these are basic and important investments that need to be made
by the Federal Government on behalf of the States and
territories, you know, the problem of, you know, us continuing
to grow.
And I look forward to having a dialogue today and I will be
in particular focused on the fact, and most of our colleagues
who aren't on this committee don't know this and many of our
colleagues on this committee don't know this, that in 2014,
Federal investment in service transportation, which is
currently about $50 billion a year, will drop to $6 to $7
billion in 1 year. That will mean basically the States will
have to get in line to get reimbursed for projects that they
have already undertaken, and the States are very unlikely to
initiate new projects in that year, given the dearth of Federal
funds.
And this is something that we need to begin talking about
in this committee. I know no one wants to talk about taxes or
revenues of any sort, but that is the reality: $50 billion this
year; 2014, $7 billion. That is pathetic, and we have to do
something about it. And I am going to be asking the various
witnesses how they plan to handle that in the agencies under
their jurisdiction.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. I would now like to recognize the
chairman of the full committee, Bill Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to
echo what Mr. DeFazio said there. That is our biggest challenge
we face moving forward, and so we need to--as I have said over
and over, we have got to look at all of the options that are
out there and look at some new options to funding the
transportation system. Think outside the box, if you will.
But today here we appreciate the witnesses being here and
this oversight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
oversight hearing how MAP-21 is being implemented. I think it
is important. It is a historic piece of legislation with the
many reforms and the consolidations that we have put in place.
I would be remiss by not thanking Chairman Mica for his
leadership on shepherding the bill through the last Congress,
and as Mr. DeFazio says, one of the success stories of the
112th Congress.
I am especially interested in the performance measures and
the planning process. I think that is something that will go a
long way to improving the system, but again, we need to make
sure we are on top of what is happening, what is not happening,
what is working, what is not working, so as we move towards
next year and reauthorizing another surface transportation
bill, we can learn from the past.
I also just want to let folks know that starting sometime
this spring, the vice chair of the full committee, Mr. Duncan,
we have set up a special panel, strengthening the economy by
improving freight transportation, something the Hill for 6
months will be studying hard, not only here in Washington, but
we will get out into the countryside trying to figure out,
trying to make recommendations to us on legislation that will
improve the movement of freight, the movement of goods in this
country.
So I look forward. As I look out in the audience today, a
lot of folks are interested in those things. And as we move
forward, Chairman Duncan will be looking at those in an in-
depth way.
So again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing
today, and look forward to the testimony. I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. I would like to recognize the Senior
Minority Member of the full committee, Nick Rahall.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I first want to
commend all the Administrators with us this morning for the
tremendous job they do under very difficult circumstances and
in the face of such adversity, certainly with respect to the
sequester and the fact that here in the middle of March they
still do not know what their budgets will look like for the
remainder of the fiscal year. So that has to be an extremely
challenging proposition for each of you. To those who say that
the Federal Government should be run like a business, well,
this is no way to run a business.
Today I do look forward to hearing about and discussing
some of the initiatives that I spearheaded in MAP-21, such as
closing the loopholes that allowed projects to be subdivided
into separate contracts to avoid complying with the Buy America
provisions.
I am also concerned with an administrative effort by FHWA
to expand the 30-year standing waiver exempting all
manufactured projects from Buy America. This expansion of the
waiver was done by memo, without public input and no
opportunity for comment.
In the area of transit, I have concerns with the new Bus
and Bus Facilities Formula Grant Program, which is being
implemented as grants to the States rather than directly to
transit systems in areas with a population of less than
200,000. And I look forward to some discussion of that during
this hearing.
There is one additional area that I believe deserves
discussion, and although today may not be the appropriate time
since not enough time has elapsed since enactment of MAP-21,
and that is how the States are addressing what were formerly
called transportation enhancements, scenic byways and
recreational trails under the new TAP program, the
Transportation Alternatives Program. And in this regard, I
commend you, Chairman Petri, for the leadership and strong
advocacy that you have been over this program.
So these initiatives first authorized in landmark ISTEA in
1991 have done so much to improve the quality of life in rural
and urban areas as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. And now we turn to our distinguished
panel, consisting of Administrator Victor Mendez, Federal
Highway Administration; Peter Rogoff, Federal Transit
Administration; Administrator Anne Ferro, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration; and David Strickland, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
Again, we thank you for the effort that went into this,
invite you to summarize the remarks, the statements in about 5
minutes. And I think we will begin with Administrator Mendez.
TESTIMONY OF HON. VICTOR M. MENDEZ, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; HON. PETER M. ROGOFF, ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION; HON. ANNE S. FERRO,
ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; AND
HON. DAVID L. STRICKLAND, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Mendez. Well, thank you. And good morning everyone. Mr.
Chairman, Ranking Member DeFazio, members of the subcommittee,
thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Federal Highway
Administration's progress in implementing MAP-21.
Immediately after President Obama signed MAP-21 last year,
FHWA moved very quickly to effectively carry out its
provisions, and I am pleased to highlight our extensive efforts
to date. Transportation moves our economy, and your bipartisan
support for MAP-21 is a recognition of the national priority to
keep America's transportation network operating safely and
reliably. MAP-21 sustains our Highway Trust Fund and provides
States and local communities with a 2-year horizon of funding
to build the roads, bridges, tunnels and transit systems that
our economy needs to stay competitive. That means contractors
and construction companies are able to plan for big projects
and make the kind of employment decisions that put hardworking
Americans back to work.
Under MAP-21, Congress provided $81 billion for a
restructured performance-based Federal-aid highway program to
better target investments and increase transparency and
accountability. And FHWA wasted no time to provide States
guidance and other information, including anticipated funding
amounts, to ensure States could adequately plan and begin
obligating funds on October 1st for critical projects.
MAP-21 also makes great progress in improving safety,
expanding the TIFIA credit program, and ensuring better
transportation planning. It also includes many provisions that
complement the successes of FHWA's Every Day Counts innovation
initiative, which I launched 3 years ago to present new
technologies, new ideas, and new ways of thinking to deliver
projects faster and expedite the deployment of new and proven
technologies into the marketplace. These provisions will help
us become more innovative, allow the public to enjoy the
benefits of upgraded infrastructure sooner, and ensure the best
value for every taxpayer dollar.
MAP-21 provided DOT with unprecedented opportunities to
improve freight movement throughout our Nation, including the
establishment of a national freight policy and national freight
network, and the development of national and State freight
plans. Our implementation efforts to date are very extensive,
beginning with Secretary LaHood's announcement of the creation
of our Freight Policy Council last summer, which brings
together senior DOT leadership and a variety of experts.
We are also creating a National Freight Advisory Committee
to engage the public and private sector to help us improve the
way we move freight. And, we are actively working to designate
the national freight network to better focus attention on the
highways most critical to the movement of goods.
MAP-21 made a number of other reforms to existing programs
and provisions that required our immediate attention and action
to ensure that Federal, State, local and tribal transportation
partners were ready on October 1st. Accordingly, shortly after
MAP-21 passed, we created a MAP-21 Web site to link our
employees, stakeholders, and the public to the new act and to
provide related resources as they became available. We held 26
informational Webinars across the spectrum of our programs that
reached over 10,000 stakeholders. We also provided several
opportunities to hear from the public. For example, in the area
of performance management, we held a series of listening
sessions and other meetings last summer. And in September, we
held a National Online Dialogue with more than 8,000 visitors,
who contributed 228 ideas for our consideration.
Additionally, we developed and posted on the Web site
numerous guidance documents, questions and answers, and other
information in a timely manner to help the Nation's Federal,
State, local, and tribal transportation agencies implement MAP-
21 programs and provisions, and to highlight opportunities
available under the new law.
We also took swift action to implement MAP-21 provisions
requiring regulatory changes. Our collaborative efforts with
FTA and other Federal agencies helped us to meet several
rulemaking deadlines, and we are on track to complete all of
the remaining requirements.
The achievements I have highlighted today represent just
some of the efforts we have underway at FHWA to implement MAP-
21. We look forward to working with all of you as we continue
to make progress toward full and effective implementation of
these critical programs and provisions.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks and would
be happy to answer your questions.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Administrator Rogoff.
Mr. Rogoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
DeFazio, and other members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to highlight the Federal Transit Administration's
progress toward implementing key provisions of MAP-21, which
makes many bold policy changes that the administration has
sought. Despite facing an array of funding challenges, I am
pleased by the progress we are making to implement MAP-21 at
the FTA.
As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, in your opening remarks,
we have a new Emergency Relief Program, which the President
first proposed in his budget for 2012. It was authorized in
MAP-21, and thankfully it was enacted in time for the worst
natural disaster ever to befall public transportation in the
United States, Hurricane Sandy, which affected more than 40
percent of the Nation's transit ridership at the height of the
storm.
The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act originally granted
$10.9 billion to FTA to reimburse transit agencies for response
and immediate recovery and to mitigate the impact of future
disasters. To date, we have allocated more than $390 million of
that amount to reimburse the hardest hit agencies in New York,
New Jersey, and elsewhere. By next week, we intend to award
more than $150 million in additional funds. By the end of this
month, we will announce the distribution of the first $2
billion made available under that program.
At the Obama administration's urging, Congress granted FTA
historic new authority to provide long overdue Federal safety
oversight, and we welcome this new responsibility. Our goal is
to implement a safety management system approach that improves
safety using commonsense standards that will add value without
adding a great deal of cost or burdensome regulations to our
transit agencies.
We recognize going in that a one-size-fits-all approach to
safety is not the best approach for the unique needs of
individual transit providers. FTA will set a national framework
and then work with each agency to develop a safety system that
targets its greatest safety vulnerabilities, and those
vulnerabilities will not be the same from one transit agency to
the next.
Meanwhile, we have begun to work closely with all of the
affected Governors, our transit rail safety advisory
committee--TRACS--and other stakeholders to embark on the
necessary rulemaking and public education process.
I would like to follow up on something that Mr. DeFazio
spoke to, namely the condition of our infrastructure, because
keeping our transit system safe goes hand in hand with bringing
our aging systems into a state of good repair. Following on the
Administration's budget proposal, MAP-21 established a new,
vitally needed formula program for railways and busways, and
initiated a new national transit asset management program that
will cover all transit systems. This program will help the
industry tackle deferred rehabilitation, replace outdated
transit assets, and support ongoing maintenance efforts that
are key to maintaining a transit network that continues to
provide reliable and desirable service for the American public.
I appreciate the committee's support for the policy goals
in MAP-21; however, I need to remind the committee that FTA
faces budget challenges that hamper our ability to address
these goals. Some of those challenges Mr. Rahall spoke to in
his statement.
Overall, the sequester struck $656 million from FTA's
budget. It reduced program funding for our capital investment
grants program by almost $100 million. This will mean that few,
if any, additional New Starts construction projects will be
fundable in the near term. Even more troubling is the fact that
ongoing major New Starts and Small Starts projects will
experience increasing borrowing costs as FTA will now be
required by sequestration to slow its scheduled grant payments
to projects for which we have already made written financing
agreements.
Even without the sequester, under MAP-21, our New Starts/
Small Starts capital investment program was authorized to
receive 10 percent less in funding when compared with amounts
available to carry out the projects in recent fiscal years.
These are just some of the significant funding challenges
that direct our programs and really undermine some of our
efforts to serve a record number of transit riders. And I would
emphasize that: we are seeing a record number of transit riders
across the country today. FTA will still do all it can to
continue making progress to live up to the promise of MAP-21
with the resources we have available to us.
And if I could just speak to one other thing that Chairman
Shuster mentioned and Administrator Mendez mentioned. The area
of freight policy is one that holds great promise for
coordination between the new task force that the chairman
mentioned and what we are doing at DOT. Administrator Mendez
spoke to the fact that the Secretary has stood up a new Freight
Policy Council and has brought together a freight advisory
committee that we are convening now. It just seems to me that
this is a unique opportunity to have those two entities work
together with Chairman Shuster's task force toward identifying
common challenges and work toward common goals, and we look
forward to that partnership going forward.
Thank you.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Administrator Ferro.
Ms. Ferro. Thank you, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member
DeFazio and subcommittee members. Thank you for the opportunity
to join my colleagues today in sharing the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration's plans to implement the
provisions of MAP-21.
Let me start by thanking the subcommittee and the full
committee for your work on this important legislation. It
absolutely has provided the FMCSA key enforcement tools to
carry out its mission to reduce crashes and injuries involving
large trucks and buses. Every life is precious, any one is one
too many to lose, and we are absolutely grateful for the
provisions in MAP-21 that really strengthen our overall
authority.
The legislation enhances enforcement strategies consistent
with the agency's three core principles, which are raising the
bar to come into this industry, to ensure that those who are
operating are maintaining high standards as they operate on our
highways, and to make sure everybody has the tools to get the
bad actors off the road.
FMCSA began putting our new safety tools into place quickly
after enactment of the legislation. Late last year, for
example, we ordered a rogue moving company in California that
was holding hostage the goods of 54 consumers, refusing to
release them until they pay a significantly higher rate. We
were able to use the new authority under MAP-21 not just to
order the company to release the goods, but to promptly revoke
their authority as well.
Just a couple weeks ago we used new authorities within MAP-
21 to shut down a bus company that had refused us access to
their records as we were completing a thorough investigation of
their operations. We promptly revoked that company's authority.
We are working with them today.
MAP-21 rulemaking provisions are a key element of our
priority work plan, as they need to be. We are implementing
them very carefully and deliberately.
The drug and alcohol clearinghouse, for example, that is
required in MAP-21 is one that we expect to have on the street
as a proposed rule this spring. That is a clearinghouse
provision that will provide employers preemployment knowledge
of applicants who may have tested positive for drugs or
alcohol, or test refusals, and thereby avoid hiring someone
that is not qualified to operate a commercial vehicle.
MAP-21 also directs FMCSA to implement a full-scale
electronic logging requirement for all entities operating under
hours of service, maintaining records of duty status. We cannot
move quickly enough on this important legislation that
transitions the paper logbook world into one where hours of
service are monitored electronically, thereby improving overall
compliance with a very important provision.
We have met extensively through listening sessions and
other meetings with our advisory committee, listening sessions
with a broad audience of drivers, enforcement personnel,
industry specialists, technology providers to ensure we are
getting the provisions right in that rule, and we expect that
to be a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
incorporating all the requirements within MAP-21 by September
of this year.
We are actively working on other requirements as well
within the new MAP-21 legislation. That includes implementing a
knowledge test for any applicant for authority prior to gaining
their authority, to demonstrate their knowledge not only in our
safety rules, but where applicable in consumer and commercial
rules as well.
We are proceeding ahead with behind the wheel and classroom
training requirements for CDL operators, and moving forward
with very important research, including a field test on a 34-
hour restart provision, including examining insurance minimums,
and assessing crash rates under the new agricultural
exemptions, which just went into a final rule actually posted
today.
All in all, MAP-21 helps this agency raise the safety bar
for operators on our highways, making our roads safer for
everybody.
And with that, again, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member DeFazio
and Members, we thank you, and I will be pleased to answer any
questions.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Administrator Strickland.
Mr. Strickland. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member DeFazio and members of the committee. I
appreciate on behalf of National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to testify about the implementation of our
agency's work on MAP-21.
Every member of this committee is aware of the challenges
that the Department faces in roadway safety, and that is why we
appreciate the prioritization that was enumerated in MAP-21.
Highway fatalities fell to 32,367 in 2011, making it the
lowest level since 1949 and a 1.9-percent decrease from the
previous year. The historic downward trend in recent years
continued through 2011 and represents a 26-percent decline in
traffic fatalities since 2005. For the first time since 1981,
motor vehicle crashes were not among the top ten causes of
death in the United States. In 2011 we also saw the lowest
fatality rate ever recorded with 1.10 deaths per 100 million
vehicle miles traveled.
Other important data points include that fatalities
declined by 4.6 percent for occupants of passenger cars and
light trucks. Drunk driving fatalities dropped 2.5 percent in
2011.
The number of people killed in distracted affected crashes
rose by 1.9 percent. Fatalities increased amongst large truck
occupants by 20 percent. I would like to assure the committee
that we are working closely with my fellow Administrator, Anne
Ferro, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to
gather more detailed information about the issues around large
truck occupant crashes to better understand this increase that
we saw.
Bicycle and pedestrian fatalities increased by 8.7 percent
and 3 percent, respectively. This spike is alarming, and we are
taking a number of steps in addressing this. First, the
Department will be hosting two bicycle safety summits in the
coming year. We will be working with advocates, safety experts
and average riders. We look to examine what safety strategies
work and what isn't working, and will use this information to
make bicycling safer throughout the Nation. We will target a
series of events in the areas that have experienced the most
fatalities and will work with State and local officials to make
sure they are taking advantage of the resources available to
them.
We will challenge our State and local partners to help us
better understand what is happening on the ground; for example,
to what extent changes in bicycle fatalities might be related
to increased ridership. And, finally, we will launch a new
demonstration program to improve driver and pedestrian
interactions and behavior.
In spite of all of our gains in lowering overall
fatalities, motor vehicle traffic crashes continue to be a
leading cause of death for those that are in our younger age
groups. That is why programs such as graduated driver licenses,
or GDLs, are so important. And I am pleased that the Congress
authorized incentive grants in MAP-21 to encourage more States
to adopt such an approach for younger, inexperienced drivers.
MAP-21's consolidation of the various grant programs from
SAFETEA-LU into the new Section 405 National Priority Safety
Program is actually a great bonus and administrative relief for
the States that actually use our programs. We have been looking
to have a consolidated application and annual deadline and
greater flexibility to ensure grant funds are directed to
priority highway safety programs.
We have acted quickly to implement these particular
programs. Less than 2 months after enactment, we have issued a
notice of fund availability for the distracted driving grants.
At the last deadline of the month, 34 States, including the
District of Columbia and three territories, have submitted
applications for these grants. We published an interim final
rule for the National Priority Safety Program in January 2013.
This IFR provides States the guidance about the application
process for all NHTSA highway safety grants. The comment period
will remain open until April 23rd, 2013.
In support of learning about these new programs, we have
conducted three Webinars with the State Highway Safety Program
offices and with a step-by-step process of how the new grant
processes work. We will have two additional Webinars scheduled
for March.
Please be aware that the full year continuing resolution
passed by the House last week would fail to provide funds for
NHTSA in a manner consistent with MAP-21. Specifically, it
would not provide funding for the two new important MAP-21
grant programs, the distracted driving grant and the graduated
driver's licenses program for young drivers. The Senate's
version of the CR fully implements this MAP-21 authorization.
We urge this committee to work with the Congress and make sure
that resources for NHTSA can support these important priority
safety programs.
As an agency, we are dedicated for our mission for safety.
We work closely with the States and will continue our
partnership to make sure that MAP-21 is effectively
implemented.
Thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Thank you all for your statement. And
I think I will begin the questioning. I would be remiss if I
didn't state that the biggest thing facing the committee and
the country within the transportation area is how to maintain
our infrastructure and adapt it to the opportunities and needs
of the times. And as you all know, the Highway Trust Fund
provides funding for most highway transit and highway safety
programs and is projected to run out of money in 2015. I
understand the income, covering about 60 percent of the total
that is going out, is something that needs to be addressed.
Does the Administration have any recommendation on how to
address the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund?
Mr. Mendez. Mr. Chairman, let me address some of it, and
the other Administrators may wish to chime in on this.
I think one of the really important issues that we are
facing, as you mentioned, is the issue of funding. And as we
move forward, I can tell you one of the really critical pieces
of MAP-21 is the TIFIA program. Certainly we have raised the
awareness of bringing the private sector into the industry to
help us with the funding issues. So I think that is really a
good thing that you have done and increased, within MAP-21.
Obviously, the bigger issue is, of course, working with the
administration and with Congress finding solutions to move us
to where we need to be and be able to invest as a Nation to
move forward.
Mr. Rogoff. Sir, obviously the condition of the Highway
Trust Fund is a concern to all of us, as we have to monitor the
balances to make sure that we are going to get through the MAP-
21 period in a fashion that will enable us to continue to make
grants through 2014.
I think it is notable the President did propose in his
budget last year a proposal to use half the savings from the
drawdown in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to maintain
transportation spending at robust levels absent a trust fund
solution. So there is a proposal to make sure that we do not
fall off the cliff. It is not necessarily a trust fund
solution.
Ms. Ferro. I have nothing further to add.
Mr. Strickland. Likewise.
Mr. Petri. I would just note that the association
representing the trucking industry is now endorsing an increase
in diesel fuel taxes, which have not been increased since 1993,
not because they want it, but because they need the
infrastructure for their industry, and feel that of the
different choices that they confront this is probably the most
feasible.
And we do see a number of States--and of course, these
programs are Federal, but they are administered through the
States in the highway area, and they face many, many challenges
and opportunities at that level, and raise their own funding. A
number of States are stepping up, whether it is Virginia or
Wyoming recently, or others. So we are at some point going to
have to do our duty however we can at the national level so
that our country has adequate transportation infrastructure
going forward.
I am interested in Administrator Ferro's discussion of
electronic log recordkeeping for drivers. And this is clearly a
way to make it much more accurate. It also runs some risks of
being sort of too rigid in the sense that if you run into
situations, you must have some fudge factor or if a driver is
within a few miles of being at home and suddenly runs up
against the limit, is supposed to lay over for a period of
time. How do you reconcile the standards that are written down
that look very precise with the reality that people's fatigue
level and so on on an individual basis varies quite a bit, and
one-size-fits-all is easy to administer, but it is not
necessarily sensible in the individual situation? We are going
to get a lot of pushback, as you know, and you already are, on
some of this.
Ms. Ferro. Well, Mr. Chairman, your point with regard to
the value of a uniform electronic logging rule is a very strong
one as it pertains to safety and ensuring, again, that everyone
is sort of operating on a level playing field when it comes to
hours of service compliance.
We have seen a number of companies, large and small,
transition to the use of electronic logging devices, and doing
so very effectively, very profitably and finding that it is a
very efficient mechanism, and over time, sometimes almost
immediately, drivers prefer it as well.
With regard to developing the rule, as committee members
know, we have been working on this issue and the development of
a strong electronic logging rule for several years now and have
included in that development a number of listening sessions
with industry, with drivers at the Mid-America Truck Show, with
a broad cross-section of interest groups, and I feel very
strongly that we are incorporating a number of those comments
and that input into the SNPRM that we are developing.
It really has four core factors in the rule itself: first
are just the technical specifications for the equipment, which
shares its own complexity and requires flexibility with the new
technologies today; ensuring that drivers are not harassed with
the use of those devices; ensuring that any sort of supporting
documents requirements that are required to document and prove
an operator's hours are reduced and streamlined through the use
of those devices; and then the requirement itself. Again, we
are taking that concern that you raised into account.
Mr. Petri. Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogoff, the new
Transit Safety Oversight Program, what is going to happen to
that with sequestration in terms of implementation?
Mr. Rogoff. Well, it certainly----
Mr. DeFazio. Turn on your----
Mr. Rogoff. I am sorry. It certainly holds us back. Like a
number of the other MAP-21 regulatory requirements,
sequestration is going to result in a sizeable hit to my
administrative budget, which is likely to result in us having
to furlough people before the end of the year unless some
relief is found.
And obviously we have always treated safety as the highest
priority. That has been the Secretary's entreaty to us, and we
have always followed that, but this new safety authority is one
where this committee actually authorized some increased
administrative funding for us, recognizing that we needed that
additional staff complement to take on this new responsibility.
Mr. DeFazio. Uh-huh. OK.
Mr. Rogoff. What is happening is the reverse. Rather than
get the added authorized levels, we are getting a freeze minus
the sequester.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Good. So we have got a problem there. And
I just got--my most recent numbers I have are that the National
State of Good Repair Assessment estimates that $77.7 billion of
the assets for the entire transit industry are past their
expected period of reliable service, which would sort of point
to me the need for this oversight and safety. I mean, we killed
some people here in DC because of the outmoded equipment, and
so I am sure elsewhere we have problems.
Mr. Rogoff. Indeed. We have viewed the safety
responsibility and the new state of good repair challenges as
one in the same in many ways. Unfortunately, I have to point
out that that $78 billion estimate is now a couple of years old
and it is probably higher.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks. Ms. Ferro, just two quick questions.
One is the drug and alcohol clearinghouse, great, but I held a
hearing a few years ago here where we found that the chain of
custody doesn't exist, that there were onsite, you know,
coaching to fake up your drug tests, the collection points are
not monitored in any way, and, in fact, are often a point of
fraud.
So have we done anything to deal with the collection sites
and put a little more integrity in this chain of testing?
Ms. Ferro. Actually, the MAP-21 provisions incorporated--
gave us a stronger level of oversight on the collection sites.
I can't cite it right now, but I will be happy to follow up
with you----
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Ms. Ferro [continuing]. Because we share that concern.
Mr. DeFazio. All right. Thank you. And then also, you know,
I have been on an issue for quite some time now, and we are
talking about the logbooks and we are talking about safety,
that is all great, but you know, I know, people in the audience
know that a lot of truckers are detained past their operating
hours at points of dropping off their loads. You know, I mean,
what are we going to do about that? I mean, you know, they have
got to move. I mean, come on. We know they are going to move,
we know they are going to violate their operating hours.
Ms. Ferro. I agree that drivers who are detained absolutely
are pressured to finish the leg of their journey. They may be
detained beyond hours of service. They are going to be pressed
to complete that journey, probably over hours and probably very
tired, and clearly very stressed.
We are continuing some of the work that I think you had
identified and had GAO do with regard to additional studies on
the impact of detention time on driver safety.
MAP-21 also incorporates a provision called a prohibition
on coercion, which doesn't speak directly to detention time,
but does speak to the agency's now new opportunity to take
action in cases where a driver files a complaint that a shipper
or receiver or another party is exercising some sort of
leverage or coercion through economic withholding or perhaps
even physical harm at the point of loading, unloading. And so,
again, back real quickly on detention, we are completing a
study. We expect that to be done in 2015, if not sooner.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you. And then just quickly anybody
on what is--what the plans are for 2015? I mean, the chairman
referenced it, but I am just curious. Are we going to start
slowing down in 2014 or 2013? I mean, if you see this cliff
coming, you know, have you made the States aware of it, because
if they have a 2-year project where the payout would be in
2015, that might be a problem. Either highways or transit,
quickly.
Mr. Rogoff. All I would add, sir, is that we unfortunately
have had to grow accustomed to this when trust fund balances
have gotten low. And we do have a mechanism to monitor them,
and we would have to slow payments. What I can't give you a
good fix on right now, because we are still a ways out from the
end of 2014, is whether we are going to have a solvency problem
within 2014 or not. The Transit Account has sort of teetered on
both sides of the margin, depending on when you ask, but Victor
may have other insights on this.
Mr. Mendez. Yes, sir. In 2008 I believe we faced the
situation you are talking about. At that point in time, FHWA
did develop a process.
Now, I won't go through the entire process, but basically
at the end of the day what happens, is if you don't have
sufficient funds in the account, you begin to then delay
Federal payments to the State DOTs and other recipients.
Being a former State DOT director, I know on the State
level what you will be finding is that then you would start
looking at contracts that you will not issue; you will start
delaying projects. Critical infrastructure that needs to move
forward, you won't move forward with those contracts.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mendez, I have a
couple questions for you. In 2005, I authored the NEPA
reciprocity law that allowed States that equaled or exceeded
NEPA to only go through one process. They sort of filled the
paperwork out, but they didn't have to go through the
duplicative process. And only one State took advantage of it,
California, and they have really done well. They have probably
saved 17 months off the process time, and delivery time about
30 months.
And I authored the language in Section 1313 of MAP-21 that
also would have allowed all the States to do it. It is a
permanent program. I am sad that the Senate didn't accept our
language. We don't have to fill out one piece of paper, but we
have to do the duplicative process still, but it allows States
with environmental laws that equal or exceed NEPA not to have
to go through both processes. The original language I authored
would have allowed counties and cities to do that, but it was
stricken in the Senate.
But California has done a very good job on the process. But
do you kind of agree that to avoid the duplicative process
would be beneficial to all the States?
Mr. Mendez. If you look at MAP-21, you did open up that
provision to allow other States to actually participate. So we
are looking very hard, working with AASHTO and the States to
once again take a look at that and see how we might be able to
encourage other States to participate within that provision.
And it is very true. We have found in California as we
looked at some of the data that the environmental process they
follow has actually been very beneficial. I believe the numbers
you quoted are pretty accurate, 17 to 18 months' reduction in
the process. So we are going to continue to work with the
States and see what we can do to encourage others to
participate.
Mr. Miller. Well, if you can do it in California, I believe
you can probably do it anywhere, because California's a very
tough State on the process of environmental review. Do you
expect DOT to grant the eligible States ability to do this to
qualify in the near future?
Mr. Mendez. Oh, absolutely. We will implement the
provisions as you have mandated.
Mr. Miller. And what methods are you using to determine the
effectiveness of the streamlining regulations and implementing
the plan?
Mr. Mendez. Well, with regard to the overall streamlining,
because you did provide to us various provisions for
streamlining the environmental process, we have undertaken
many--we have implemented a lot of guidance to help the States
move forward in that regard.
We also have quite a few rulemaking processes that are
underway to help us implement all the provisions for
environmental streamlining. I have a whole list that I probably
could provide to you after the fact, but we are working very
hard to implement all these provisions.
I can tell you moving a project forward in terms of project
delivery, environmental streamlining, has been a very major
issue, not only for us at FHWA since I have been there, but
really for the entire administration. I can tell you as an
outgrowth of an Executive order we worked with the
Transportation Rapid Response Team to coordinate with other
Federal agencies to move some of these projects forward, and we
have been very successful.
Mr. Miller. It seems like every project that they put out
to bid comes in under the engineer's estimates, probably
considerably, because people aren't busy right now and they can
deliver projects quicker. Is your focus right now on timeline
on project delivery?
Mr. Mendez. Absolutely. Since I have been at FHWA, about
3\1/2\ years, one of my major priorities has been implementing
innovation initiatives to help deliver projects in half the
time. I believe the chairman mentioned it takes about 14 to 15
years to deliver major projects. My challenge to the industry
has been to cut that in half. We have implemented the Every Day
Counts initiative to help us do that.
And I think at the larger level, I believe if you listen to
President Obama talk to every individual Federal agency asking
us to cut the red tape, that is what we are looking at.
Mr. Miller. You briefly mentioned challenges. What do you
see as the biggest challenge in implementing this process?
Mr. Mendez. Well, I think it is just a matter of getting
the industry on board. We are working, by the way, with the
private sector and the public sector on a lot of these
strategies that we have identified to move projects forward.
And, you know, we are in a fairly conservative industry, so
taking new ideas and implementing them takes a little bit
longer. I think what we have provided at FHWA is a venue or a
channel, if you will, for all State agencies to work with us
and deploy these strategies nationwide.
Mr. Miller. Freight delivery is huge in my district,
because we have the ports of Long Beach and L.A. in California.
And what do you see in your process to ensure we have a solid,
well-funded freight line plan that comes out of the DOT to the
States in the near future?
Mr. Mendez. Well, as you are aware, within MAP-21, there is
a big focus on freight movement in a reliable manner and
reducing congestion. And, by the way, I was at the Gerald
Desmond Bridge about 2 months or so ago, so I understand the
challenges you face there.
As you are aware, within MAP-21, there are certain
provisions that we need to implement, things like creating a
national freight network, and we have that process underway. In
fact, we issued a notice in early February outlining for
everybody what that process will be to identify the freight
network.
We also will be looking at other elements within DOT. The
Secretary did form the Freight Policy Council. And as was
mentioned earlier, we are looking to create a National Freight
Advisory Committee. And, by the way, we are looking for
nominees, and the deadline for that is March 21st. So it is
important for us to bring in stakeholders with the right kind
of experience, both public and private. And whether it is
safety issues or trucking issues, rail issues, we need all that
at the table to come up with a strategy that makes sense for
the entire Nation.
Mr. Miller. I will have more questions, but the chairman
has been very generous. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Rahall.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Mendez,
let me follow up on something I mentioned in my opening
statement. You recently issued a memo to division officers
expanding the current 30-year standing waiver exempting all
manufacturing products from Buy America. Many in the industry
have questioned the need for the existing waiver, let alone the
need to expand it.
FHWA claims that the intent of the memo was to clarify that
miscellaneous items like faucets, door hinges, fittings,
clamps, washers, nuts and bolts used on Federal highway
projects are not subject to Buy America.
Mr. Administrator, I would ask you to look at the images
that are on the screen. It is my understanding that these items
would no longer be subject to Buy America under your memo. Now,
the last time that I was in Lowe's, if I recall, I could not
find anything that looked like these items on the shelf, so I
don't see these as miscellaneous, off-the-shelf items that
should not be subject to Buy America, but they would be under
your memo.
Can you explain to me why the FHWA issued this memo and why
your agency spoke--or who your agency spoke to prior to issuing
this memo? Did the agency engage manufacturers and other
stakeholders prior to issuing the memo?
And then I am also interested in why FHWA thought it was
appropriate to make the determination to expand this 30-year-
old waiver through a memo with no notice and opportunity for
comment.
Mr. Mendez. Well, thank you. And I do understand the
concern that has been out there and certainly has been
expressed to us directly by many stakeholders, but I do want to
go back to some of your comments. The intent genuinely was not
to expand or reduce what was already in place. What we believed
internally was to try and provide to all of our offices
throughout the Nation--in case you are not aware, we have an
office in every State--and so we wanted to ensure that this
waiver for manufactured products was being implemented
throughout the Nation in a consistent manner. And so that was
clearly the intent from our standpoint, was internally to
ensure everybody was doing things consistently.
And let me point to what we do on a national level, because
I think I need to put this into context. When it comes to Buy
America, nobody has set a higher standard than Secretary LaHood
and our Deputy Secretary Porcari. Whenever we receive a waiver
request, it is very difficult for us to get them approved. I
know that, our division administrators know that. So waivers
are very, very minimal. Within our $40 billion program
nationwide, I believe in 2011 we issued six waivers at a cost
of $6 million, which if you look at percentages, it is way less
than one-tenth of a percent that received a waiver.
I just want to assure you that we are very focused on Buy
America, and really our standard has been very high. And on
that, I can assure you the intent was not to expand the
authorities.
Now, since that time, though, a group has issued or
submitted a legal action against us on that memo, and so we are
working with the Department of Justice on that issue to see how
we are going to deal with that legally.
Mr. Rahall. Do you have any input from stakeholders when
you issue waivers?
Mr. Mendez. You mean on this particular issue?
Mr. Rahall. Yes.
Mr. Mendez. No, we did not. Like I said, our intent was
really strictly to ensure consistency within our operations
throughout the Nation.
Mr. Rahall. All right. Administrator Rogoff, let me turn to
you real quickly. As a result of the 2010 census, Huntington,
West Virginia, Ironton, Ohio, and Ashland, Kentucky, are now
part of a single new urbanized area, which has a population
just over FTA's threshold of 200,000 for large urbanized areas.
There are three small transit systems in the region, but they
are now each saddled with Federal transit rules designed for
much larger urban areas.
One challenge raised by my local transit agency this week
in Huntington, West Virginia, is that one of the other
agencies, the Ashland bus system, has refused to negotiate how
Federal transit dollars are to be divided among the three
systems in the region. FTA has indicated that until they come
to an agreement at the local level, all Federal formula funding
to the UZA will be held up.
Does FTA have any process in place to address this
situation? And I am wondering what recourse does a transit
agency have if another agency in the UZA refuses to come to the
table?
Mr. Rogoff. Well, a couple of things. First, the 200,000
population threshold is not an FTA threshold. It is a threshold
in the law. So we are limited in our ability in terms of how we
must interpret it. The census tells us who is in what urbanized
area and who is not. I have just been made aware of this
problem between Huntington and Ashland. I think in the old days
Vicki would have called me in a heartbeat, but she didn't.
Mr. Rahall. She is not there anymore.
Mr. Rogoff. She is not there anymore.
Mr. Rahall. She would have to call from the farm.
Mr. Rogoff. Right. But I think more importantly, this needs
to come to closure by the end of this month. The deadline is
March 27th for them to come to an agreement.
Now, I am not supposed to intervene in these local
discussions; however, what I can do is facilitate a
conversation, and if I need to go out there, I will, and sit
everyone down and try to force a resolution, because our focus
is on the passengers and whether the passengers are being
served, and one of the ways that happens is by being sure that
our dollars can continue to flow so that transit agencies can
serve them.
So I will talk to my regional administrator on this, see
what the state of play is to date. The problem is, as I
understand it, the operating cap that would go to Ashland,
Kentucky, is not sufficient to let them even run their current
operations, and there is a lot of concern over that. And it is
a three-State challenge: it also includes Ohio. They need to
come to some resolution so the dollars can continue to flow.
And we will help facilitate that conversation if we don't see
anything coming together by the end of the month.
Mr. Rahall. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Petri. Representative Southerland.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud of
Florida's Department of DOT for delivering, I know, to my
office last week the MAP-21 performance report almost 3 years
early. And I am pleased that the report shows that Florida, our
roads, our bridges are in good shape. We can always strive to
do more, but overall I am very pleased by what I see in the
report, which is a requirement of MAP-21.
Given that today's hearing is focused on the implementation
of MAP-21, I am curious, Administrator Mendez and Administrator
Rogoff, what are you hearing from other States? Are you hearing
initial reports as far as the conditions of their reports?
Mr. Rogoff. Well, I would just make the point from the
transit perspective: we appreciate Florida's leadership in sort
of stepping out there. They have stepped out ahead of us,
frankly, in that we have not yet issued the performance
measures that we are charged with developing in MAP-21. So, you
know, we view the Florida report as a good, informative
document where they are saying to us, ``Well, this is how we
look at it in Florida,'' and that will certainly inform our
thinking nationally as we develop performance measures for both
highways and transit.
I think, importantly, we have a--and I will be interested
in seeing how Florida addressed this question--we have an
interesting challenge that you all have charged us with--I
commend you for doing that--and that is that both agencies have
a congestion performance measure to come up with, and I think
it will be the proof that we will come out of our model silos
if we come up with the identical measure of congestion. That
may be a challenge. We have been measuring congestion for the
FTA New Starts program in a variety of ways. FHWA has come at
it from a different angle. We are going to try and merge these
approaches and come up to commonality so all 50 States and the
local communities and the local transit agencies have one goal
to shoot for.
Mr. Mendez. I agree with my colleague. I would add one
other element here, which is that one thing that I have learned
about the performance management concept is that what I thought
would be straightforward really is a very complex issue when
you start talking to all the stakeholders. And then like Peter
was saying, when you look at a transit congestion approach
versus a highway approach, what does that look like if you are
going to be looking at congestion in an overall picture? So it
is a very complex issue, and we are working on it. I think the
States recognize and all the other stakeholders recognize the
complexity, and we are receiving a lot of different ideas.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you very much. A followup question.
I know the President has mentioned the number of structurally
deficient bridges we have around the entire country, and so it
is a global challenge that we face. But doesn't MAP-21 require
States to use the funds they receive to improve performance
rather than redirecting funds from those States, such as my own
State of Florida, that are already demonstrating good
performance? I say that because Florida has traditionally been
penalized for keeping our bridges and roads in good condition
using State dollars, so we don't just depend on Federal
dollars, while some other States may get rewarded because they
don't do some of the usage of their State dollars. So it seems
to me to kind of be a weird disincentive to do the right thing.
How do you interpret MAP-21, as I interpret it regarding those
funds?
Mr. Mendez. There are a couple of major programs within
MAP-21. One is the National Highway Performance Program, which
is geared toward state of good repair, maintaining the system,
or adding capacity, if you choose to do that, or other
improvements. There is also another program called the Surface
Transportation Program, that is STP. That is geared primarily
toward state of good repair.
Now, there are some criteria that I don't have right off
the top of my mind here. But on the safety aspect, if you meet
some of those performance measures in safety, you then can
actually utilize some of that for other purposes. So I don't
really see that as a disincentive or a penalty, if you will.
MAP-21 actually provided a lot of flexibility to the States and
the MPOs.
Mr. Southerland. All right. OK.
Mr. Rogoff. I don't have anything to add to that, sir.
Mr. Southerland. That is fine. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing, and I
yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Carson.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am particularly
interested in working on issues related to intelligent
transportation systems. I want to build on the limited language
included in MAP-21 and see better utilization of smart
technologies with our existing infrastructure and really begin
to implement new technologies. I strongly believe that the
utilization of intelligent transportation technology can
improve safety, lower highway fatalities, reduce congestion,
and help make our transportation system smarter and more
sustainable.
Please tell us what your agencies are undertaking at this
point and the status of this work. Also, tell us about any
collaborations with non-Federal partners, including educational
or research institutions, or corporate partners for that
matter, in terms of helping move this issue forward.
Mr. Strickland. Well, Mr. Carson, if you don't mind, I will
start, and I guess my colleagues can definitely follow on.
Right now the Department is actually at a fairly significant
point in the Vehicle-to-Vehicle Safety Program and the ITS
program in general. This year the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration will be making an agency decision on
whether to go forward in issuing a rule or other action in
regards to vehicle-to-vehicle communications, and it really is
a landmark moment. We currently right now are running a pilot
project in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which is going to involve 3,000
vehicles which all have the V2V beacons and it is actually
going very well. We are getting an incredible amount of data
and results from that.
And you are absolutely right, the prospects of V2V alone
fully integrated in the fleet, our research has shown, it could
address up to 80 percent of crash scenarios involving
unimpaired drivers. That is 8-0 percent. But it is really one
piece of the entire program. Clearly, the other modes are very
much involved in being part of the ITS project and
Administrator Mendez can speak to the work that Federal Highway
is undergoing for vehicle to infrastructure. But in terms of
safety and congestion relief and a number of other issues, it
holds tremendous progress.
Ms. Ferro. So the area and the use of technology to improve
the efficiency and safety of the commercial vehicle operating
industry or sector has been extremely valuable, tying into the
initiatives that Dave Strickland just walked through. The
primary area of funding to support States in the area of
intelligent vehicle implementation is called the Commercial
Vehicle Information Systems Network grant. It is a grant
program through the FMCSA and it supports States' efforts to
implement core technologies that provide for both electronic
transaction processing, but also electronic bypass capability
for carriers that demonstrate a level of safety that, as I
spoke of before, is maintaining the standards expected under
national law.
Just last year, in fact, Indiana launched a great event
demonstrating a partnership between Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio
with the use of these smart roadside technologies and
demonstrating how well it works together with States and the
use of some of the newest, to be sure that law enforcement can
pull over the highest risk carriers--that is the efficiency
piece--both checking State credentials, Federal credentials,
and on-board status. So it is an outstanding approach. Thank
you.
Mr. Carson. Thank you.
Mr. Rogoff. I would add, Mr. Carson, that there are transit
buses also involved in that V2V project out in Ann Arbor, and
it captures an opportunity to look at the surface
transportation system as a system and to be able to give, for
example, a passenger--if you have a common operating picture of
how the system is working--bus plus rail plus the streets in a
car. Eventually we will be able to pick up a smartphone and be
told what is the fastest way I can get there using a variety of
options, and especially using options like bus rapid transit,
which is being contemplated for Indianapolis at the current
time. So there is great opportunity there.
As it is right now, the ability to see when the next bus
and the next train are coming from the PDA has not only been a
great advent for convenience for the passenger; it has actually
enabled transit agencies--we don't talk about this much--to run
less frequent service without a lot of complaint because the
passenger knows when the bus is going to be there, as opposed
to needing very short headways to provide reliability.
Go ahead, Victor.
Mr. Mendez. One of the items we need to talk about, it is
one of my favorite topics, is innovation through technology.
And right now, through our research agency, RITA, a lot of
research is underway through a joint program office to look at
vehicle-to-vehicle communication and vehicle-to-infrastructure
communication and to improve safety, reduce congestion, and
really improve the quality of life. So a lot of research in
that arena is underway. I know they are engaged with the auto
manufacturing companies, along with other private sector
companies that are out there that deal with this kind of
technology.
One other element that we are looking at specifically
within FHWA, again, through our innovation initiative, is new
concepts to help us manage traffic better, things like active
traffic management concepts where you can better time your
signals on major arterials. Those kinds of ideas are being
deployed throughout the Nation as well.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Ribble.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
the panel for spending some time with us today.
Administrator Mendez, just a quick question on the truck
weight study required by MAP-21. MAP-21 specifically references
a 97,000-pound vehicle with six axles. However, it is important
to note that the legislation we debated last year in this
committee allowed the States the option of using the vehicles
instead of mandating them. Under this State option approach, a
State could decide to not allow those vehicles on a given
stretch of road while allowing them on others. Different States
might have varying infrastructure needs and particularly
compositions of industries. So freight transportation needs
vary widely across the States.
I would be concerned if the study ends up looking at this
issue as a mandate, and I am hopeful that DOT will recognize
that key distinction. I am interested in any comments you might
have on this given that this committee will rely heavily on
that study in the next highway bill debate.
Mr. Mendez. Well, let me give you a rundown on the status
of the truck size and weight study because I know there is a
lot of interest in that. It is a big issue throughout the
entire Nation. It is very important for us at the Federal level
as well. We have the study pretty much underway. We have made a
lot of effort to make that happen. As you mentioned, within the
study some of the things we are going to be looking at are six-
axle configurations, longer combination vehicles, and the
97,000 pound issues. But what we have to do and what we are
doing here is to provide to all of you a data-driven objective
analysis looking at issues that have to be balanced, things
like highway safety, impact on infrastructure, the
transportation of goods throughout the Nation in a safe manner,
and then looking at how that plays out economically in terms of
vehicle configuration.
We are in the process of hiring a consultant to help us
move through the study itself, and we are going to be looking
at overweight issues, both overweight and over dimension, both
individually and then in combination to see what the overall
impacts would be when you come up with our recommendations. So
we are also going to be taking a lot of input from stakeholders
to help us get to a final conclusion.
Mr. Ribble. Are you including the impact on the environment
with having fewer vehicles on the road and things like that as
well?
Mr. Mendez. Absolutely. And I know one of the concerns that
I have heard from some Members here, is what is going to happen
not only in the rural areas, but what about the urban areas and
what kind of impact do we have on urban areas, because we tend
to look at freight maybe more in terms of getting from long
distances, if you will. So we are very focused on this, and we
will get you a report that is going to be objective and data-
driven.
Mr. Ribble. I appreciate that, and thank you for that.
Administrator Ferro, one of the concerns I hear frequently
from the motor carrier industry is the barriers to entry, as
well as finding adequate number of drivers in a growing
economy, which gives me a little bit of pause. In your
framework, your strategic plan, you State in your testimony
that you used three core principles, and two of them I am fully
on board with you on. The third one I have some concerns about.
It is raising the bar to enter the motor carrier industry.
Raising the bar would imply there was a bar in a wrong place.
So the previous bar was X and the new bar is Y. Could you tell
me what the changes were between the two?
Ms. Ferro. Absolutely. The first bar of all is at point of
entry when a carrier applies for and receives their authority
to operate across the United States in interstate commerce.
MAP-21 itself sets a stronger bar to come into the industry.
And one of the weakest points that we have had for many years
is that it is too easy today, if the agency or State
enforcement entity takes action against a carrier, identifies
where that carrier is perhaps presenting an imminent hazard and
makes efforts to shut them down, they can slip through and
reapply for authority and in many cases get their authority,
stick extra DOT numbers in their back pocket, and pull them out
as needed.
That is the bar that is way too low today. So it is that
point of entry. MAP-21 incorporates a knowledge-testing
requirement prior to obtaining authority that we are building
into the process; again, sort of just to tighten that net, to
ensure that those who are coming into the industry understand
the requirements.
And if I could just touch briefly, the motor carrier
industry is small business America. And I am very proud to be
part of the agency that influences the safe operation of the
industry. We regulate over 500,000 companies and 85 percent of
those have 5 trucks or fewer. And it is a very important that
we continue to support that sort of an operating environment.
Mr. Ribble. Yeah, and my concern, quite frankly, is that,
not so much for those that were a bad actor trying to circle
back around and get back in, but that new young entrepreneur
trying to create something good for their community, their
State and family, quite frankly, that we don't get the bar to a
place that would make it so difficult that they can't get in.
And that is just a caution I would give you. Thank you very
much for being here today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Capuano.
Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
panel for being here today and for your testimony. Everything
we have talked about today costs money, everything. Everything
you do costs money, from safety to repair to construction. Yet
we are in the middle of a sequester. We are about to debate a
CR that cuts back funding. We probably are looking at a
sequester next year. We have a trust fund that is running out
of money. And yet it has been very difficult for me, or anyone
else that I am aware of, to get detailed information as to what
these actions have meant, specifically. And to be perfectly
honest, everybody likes to do different things. I am not one
who likes to throw around hundreds of millions of dollars or
billions of dollars because it doesn't mean much to my
constituents. They are kind of used to those numbers and it
just flows over their head. For me it is much more interesting,
when I go to my constituents, I talk about specific projects.
This is what we want to do, or this is what we are trying to
do.
I guess what I would like to hear from you, especially Mr.
Rogoff and Mr. Mendez, are you preparing to specifically list,
hopefully by congressional district, if not maybe by State,
specific things that you will not be able to do because of
these items? And actually I am not looking for philosophical
statements. That is our job. But, Mr. Rogoff, in specific, in
my district transit is the big thing. You know, I am pushing
very hard for at least one, actually several major transit
projects. They require New Starts funding. And it is one thing
to get through all the hoops and bells and whistles to get it
there and it is another thing to get the State to have its
money. We are having those arguments as well. But none of it
means anything if New Starts gets defunded, or you can't give
this particular New Starts project to go ahead because you
don't have the funding.
And the same would be with you, Mr. Mendez, on other
issues.
And I am not today, because I know that you are still in
the middle of doing this, are you preparing to be able to give
us specific lists of specific projects that have to be cut
because of these different items? I would like to know the
difference between sequester and trust fund issues. They are
separate issues. But yet, they are important issues. What I am
looking for is the ability to have an honest discussion with
not just my colleagues, but also my constituents, to tell them
the truth. And the truth is, if you want this project, we have
to come up with this amount of money. And without this amount
of money, we can't have the project.
I guess, Mr. Rogoff, I will start with you, because transit
is so important to my district.
Mr. Rogoff. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Capuano, and let
me say that this is not hard when it comes to the New Starts
program to identify the precise projects that we are going to
have to cut, because we have signed full-funding grant
agreements that have a specified dollar amount for each one of
them. These are grant agreements that we put before this
committee for 60 days in review. Since MAP-21 it is 30 days of
review. And we presented to the committee precisely what the
funding increment would be for each year. We have the list of
these commitments we signed up for in 2013, and I can't afford
it now as a result of the sequester. And I have got the list in
front of me, and I will be happy to put it in the record at the
appropriate time.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79896.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79896.006
Mr. Capuano. And again, the sequester is only the
beginning. We may have another one next year. We have a trust
fund issue.
Mr. Rogoff. Well, that is right, and that raises some very
troubling issues for us because, let's understand, the
President's budget for this particular program is some $400
million higher than what the post-sequester level is going to
be. And we asked for those increased funds precisely because we
knew the pipeline was expanding and we have more projects
seeking entry into the program like the Green Line Extension in
Massachusetts, and if we can't meet the commitments to the
projects we have already signed up, it does not bode well for
the projects that want to get in the program in the future.
Mr. Capuano. I look forward to getting those lists.
Mr. Mendez.
Mr. Mendez. Yes. Just to be clear, under the sequester, as
we sit here today, the Highway Account has been somewhat walled
off, but there are some impacts, and let me run through that.
Under the National Highway Performance Program, out of an
approximately $40 billion program over 2 years, that portion of
the Highway Account will be reduced by approximately $32
million in fiscal year 2013. And sometime here in the next
month or so, we will go back to the States and identify State
by State how we are going to reduce that $32 million. Now, $32
million is a lot of money, so we will convey that information
and obviously, we will share that with you.
It is also important for me to mention that the Emergency
Relief Program is going to be reduced by approximately $106
million. What that really means is, because we do have a
balance in the Emergency Relief Program, that means that for
any future events that may occur in the next few months, we
will not be able to expend. We will have to subtract $106
million from the account. We will have less.
Mr. Capuano. Again, I want to be clear. I am asking more
than just sequester. We have a trust fund issue. We have a CR
issue. We have another sequester looming next year. It just
doesn't seem to stop. And I don't want people to think that
this is a one-time thing. This is a rolling problem that will
require updates as we go along. And the highway program is not
walled off of the CR. It is not walled off of the trust fund
issue.
Mr. Rogoff. And in fact the sequester next year, you know,
would be a higher percentage than we are being hit for this
year.
Mr. Capuano. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to somewhat
follow up on that, then I have another question. You know, I
hear the fact that we hear sequester all the time. It has
affected a lot of people. But I would say to all of you, I am a
small business owner. I still have a business. And the private
sector has had to cut out a lot more than 2 percent to survive
these last 4 years. And I think it is important that, as was
said earlier, you are going to have to have a plan that takes
us not only for this year, next year, and so forth, to where
you cut expenses, and at the same time not hindering the
customer.
We hear that we are not going to be able to pay certain
payments on time, this and that. I mean, do you have a plan in
your mind that you are going to take care of the customer first
as opposed to taking care of maybe reduction of people in your
agency or whatever? I mean, the customer comes first, and there
is not going to be this great amount of cashflow coming through
as you are beginning to see. And, you know, kind of what is
your plan with that? I mean, you are having to live like the
private sector has to live right now.
Mr. Rogoff. Well, I will just speak for transit. There is
no question. We have identified in terms of the funding
reductions that we are taking on the administrative front that
we are doing our damnedest to avoid any direct impact on
services to the public. But the bottom line is, I can't
furlough staff for a number of days that are providing those
services and maintain that the service is going to be the same.
We are obviously not attending conferences. We are not doing
discretionary visits, but this committee charges us with doing
oversight of the grant money you give us, and our ability to go
out and do oversight of individual projects to make sure the
Federal funds are being administered correctly is directly
undermined by our inability to travel.
Mr. Mendez. We are going to be facing the exact same issue,
and I would just lay this out for all of you. It is not a
complaint, by the way, it is just a reality check here. Even if
we look at MAP-21, for example, the added burden that we have
to assume in terms of issuing additional rulemakings,
additional reports to Congress, the oversight that Peter has
mentioned, at some point all that will come to a head, and we
will have to deal with that accordingly. And so, part of our
charge on the oversight perspective is to ensure that the
Federal funds are being used accordingly and that we are
protecting the taxpayer dollars. So it is just something we
have to look at very closely, and we will continue to do that.
Mr. Williams. Well, I appreciate that. I just want to
emphasize that the private sector is having to do this now. It
is getting in everybody's lap. And the other thing real quick,
separate, we talked earlier about any ideas you might have to
help create more funding to supply the Highway Trust Fund. Let
me ask you a question. You are familiar with the CAFE
standards. Do you think if we did away with the CAFE standards
that would be a good source of income to the Highway Trust
Fund?
Mr. Strickland. Well, in terms of the CAFE standards, what
happens is, when there is a noncompliance that automakers will
pay a penalty.
Mr. Williams. I am talking about doing away with the CAFE
standards so there is no penalty.
Mr. Strickland. Well, in terms of those funds don't go to
the Highway Trust Fund. Those particular penalties go to the
General Fund, and those numbers are, frankly, very, very small
in terms of the overall penalties that the automakers pay every
year. They are very small.
Mr. Williams. Well, the 18.4 cents goes in the Highway
Trust Fund.
Mr. Strickland. OK, you are talking about the entire, the
fuel tax. That is not CAFE, so I will defer.
Mr. Williams. The CAFE requirements of the auto
manufacturers and the truckings are to meet a certain standard.
Mr. Rogoff. I think what Mr. Williams may be putting
forward is, if we repeal the CAFE standards, would the American
public consume more fuel and thus put more revenue in the
Highway Trust Fund? Obviously, sir, the President has been very
outspoken on our need to reduce our dependence on foreign
fuel--foreign oil--and fuel consumption. That is an
administration goal. So repealing CAFE is not anything on our--
--
Mr. Williams. Well, the President and I disagree.
Mr. Rogoff. OK, very well.
Mr. Williams. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Mr. Strickland. And also to follow up, as well, sir, the
natural momentum of the fleet beyond the CAFE standards do have
an influence, that every year the actual minimum is actually--
these people are making the market decision to buy more
efficient vehicles on their own regardless of CAFE. So I think
in terms of limiting the CAFE standards, the existing fleet and
the momentum of actually the market signals from, you know,
fuel costs right now, I would have to question that theory if
you actually eliminated the standards whether you would have
any type of a----
Mr. Williams. The private sector will make that decision.
Thank you. Appreciate it.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, panel. A question, to change the subject a
little bit. I am from south Florida. We have a very high number
of seniors and folks with disabilities. Our paratransit
ridership for Palm Tran and Broward Transit is averaging over
3,000 trips per day and far exceeds the national average for
the transit system of our size. And our local agencies are
concerned that that is not recognized. I guess is there a
formula or is there some way that the Congress can address this
situation so that they could get their fair share of money.
Mr. Rogoff. Well, Ms. Frankel, there is a formula, and
ridership of the system calculates into that formula. It may
not be as immediately sensitive to that ridership year to year
as some people may feel is appropriate--it may not reflect as
quickly the changes in ridership. We just had implemented the
new census, and it had some very dynamic changes in the
allocation of funds.
Ms. Frankel. But do you take into account the elderly, the
disabled that will use a more expensive type of transit?
Mr. Rogoff. The formula is somewhat sensitive to costs, and
paratransit trips, if that is what you are referring to, ma'am,
are calculated in that. Here again, I think it is fair to say
it is in the formula, but is it dollar for dollar? I don't
think you could make that argument because the formula, like
most formulas that come forward from consensus legislation, is
sort of a hybrid of multiple factors.
Ms. Frankel. Well, let me just talk about, they tell me
that it costs $26 an hour to operate a paratransit service, but
they receive $3. Does that represent the type of formula around
the country?
Mr. Rogoff. Well, paratransit has been an increasingly
costly challenge to transit agencies all across the country,
and I am quite sure that an area that is rich with elderly
citizens would be even more challenged. But it is a civil right
that our disabled and senior citizens have. You know, the
solution to that is a statutory formula change. And the
solution to that would also be additional funding into the
program consistent with some of the numbers that the President
has requested in recent years.
Ms. Frankel. So what type of formula change could we
implement?
Mr. Rogoff. Well, like I said, the formula is somewhat
sensitive to costs in paratransit trips. I cannot say that it
necessarily is dollar-for-dollar sensitive to the considerably
higher costs that a paratransit trip costs versus a standard
trip. And that would have to be statutorily put into the
formula.
Ms. Frankel. OK, thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, ladies and gentlemen, appreciate your testimony and
being here today.
My question, at least initially, Mr. Mendez, regarding the
MAP-21 requirements for published rulemaking, I noticed in your
testimony, you said that you complied with the declarations for
emergency. But I am wondering about the NEPA requirements and
the other, the right-of-way, and the $5 million and less
standards, and when those are going to be published, if you
know; if you know also what new categorical exclusions that you
plan to propose.
Mr. Mendez. We have a lot of activity underway, a lot of
items underway. I think we have done really good work as a
Department. As I mentioned, we have had extensive, extensive
outreach to stakeholders in moving all of the rulemakings and
reports and everything else forward.
Specific to your question, on the right-of-way issue, and
the projects with limited Federal assistance, we did issue a
proposed rulemaking about 2 or 3 weeks ago, so that is out
there. We are soliciting comment, as you are aware. We will
take all comments and then we will issue a final rule sometime,
I believe, early next year.
Let's see. You asked about one other. What was the other
one?
Mr. Perry. Well, that was, it was right-of-way, and then on
the projects below $5 million.
Mr. Mendez. Yeah, so that is out. That was out a couple of
weeks ago.
Mr. Perry. It is already out?
Mr. Mendez. Not the final, just for comments.
Mr. Perry. For comments. We have got 30 or 60 days for
comment?
Mr. Mendez. I don't know that off the top.
Mr. Perry. And so after that, you said early next year for
the right-of-way. I mean, that is a long time.
Mr. Mendez. I just heard 60-day comment period, by the way.
Mr. Perry. OK, 60-day comment period. We are in March.
Mr. Mendez. Right.
Mr. Perry. So we are saying it is going to take until next
year until folks. I mean, I thought the requirement was to have
the rulemaking out by, I thought it was the end of February.
Mr. Mendez. Yeah, we met that deadline for the notice of
proposed rulemaking. We have met that deadline as of 2 weeks
ago.
Mr. Perry. Just the notice that you had to----
Mr. Mendez. Yes.
Mr. Perry. So the rulemaking itself is not required. What
is the deadline for the rulemaking itself?
Mr. Mendez. Can I get back to you on that?
Mr. Perry. Sure.
[The information follows:]
Section 1317 of MAP-21 requires the Secretary to
establish a categorical exclusion for projects of
limited Federal assistance, and requires promulgation
of a regulation to carry out this provision by February
28, 2013. FHWA met this statutory deadline by issuing a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by that date. FHWA
is currently soliciting comments through the NPRM. The
comment period for this rulemaking closes on April 29,
2013. We will work expeditiously to review and consider
all comments, and coordinate with all appropriate
Federal agencies before issuing a final rule.
Mr. Mendez. Because I know we are on track for almost all
of the rulemakings, I do know that. And you know, we have the
schedule. I just off the top don't have it.
Mr. Perry. OK, because I think that is important for folks,
I am sure folks in the room that are interested in knowing
where they stand.
Let me ask you this: Do you know the Administration's
position? I know MAP-21 calls for $5 million and below, but,
you know, you don't get much for $5 million. Highway projects,
road projects are exceptionally expensive for various reasons.
Is there any interest in moving that number up for the NEPA
requirements and the exclusions?
Mr. Mendez. Well, I think what we need to do right now is
to focus on what we currently have on hand, the $5 million, see
how that works out. You know, we might hear that as part of the
comments we need to take that into consideration. Right now, I
am not aware that anyone has made those kinds of comments, but
I would suggest we need to finalize this one before we start
contemplating some other threshold.
Mr. Perry. Sure seems like it takes a long time, a 60-day
comment and then wait until next year. We need it right now,
right? I come from Pennsylvania. We know the condition of roads
and bridges, and to wait another year to kind of get these
exclusions is a bit long, I would think.
This is probably off the beaten path, certainly with MAP-
21, just interested in if the Administration has a position on
the CARB standards. To me it is a disincentive for alternative
fuel and people modifying their vehicles to alternative fuels.
We do a lot of gas in Pennsylvania, Marcellus gas, and Utica
shale gas, and it is a disincentive for people to use fuel-
efficient vehicles that are also 100 percent more clean for the
environment regarding gasoline or diesel utilization. Does the
Administration have a position on that?
Mr. Rogoff. I am not sure you have got the right people
here. You might want to talk to the Department of Energy on
this.
Mr. Perry. This is not carbon, CARB, the California Air
Resources Board standards that States adopt.
Mr. Rogoff. Oh. I have not heard us take a position as it
relates to the merit of California's standard. We certainly
haven't proposed to preempt it.
Mr. Perry. OK.
All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Ms. Hahn.
Ms. Hahn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
Thank you, panel, for staying around. You know, during the
debate for MAP-21, I was following two pieces of the debate
very closely, freight policy and the America Fast Forward. I
represent the Port of Los Angeles, and it was great, Victor, to
have you out there at the Port of Long Beach as we were
dedicating the groundbreaking of the Gerald Desmond Bridge,
which is a huge piece of our goods movement projects. This is
the largest port complex in the country. I have also cofounded
a Port Caucus with Congressmember Ted Poe from Texas so we can
highlight the importance of our ports as it relates to goods
movement in this country. And I know that unless we develop an
effective national freight policy, we cannot move our goods
efficiently and be globally competitive.
One example I like to talk about is that goods that leave
the Port of Los Angeles take 48 hours to arrive in Chicago and
then another 30 hours to travel across the city. And I think
that means higher costs for our consumers. It is more
congestion, more pollution, less jobs. And so I think a
national freight policy, particularly that includes good grade
separation across this country, is critical to us being
competitive in the future.
The other thing I really support is America Fast Forward
and that being in the TIFIA, a provision in the TIFIA. And, you
know, in Los Angeles, while there is so much talk about not
raising taxes, in Los Angeles, in the county, we voted to tax
ourselves to pay for, specifically, for transportation
projects. And our idea was to use these funds, this revenue
stream to pay back Federal loans for transportation projects in
10 years rather than 30. And now, with the provision in TIFIA,
the entire Nation can have this kind of Federal assistance to
move their transportation projects forward.
So I know it is getting late. My two questions would be,
you know, do you see more local governments, more cities,
counties, States using this idea of providing the leverage
either through tax increases or the private sector to leverage
these kinds of loans for transportation projects? If not, how
can we encourage, you know, local governments to really follow
the example of Los Angeles?
You know, we could have built these projects in 30 years
and paid ourselves back with the revenue stream, but we thought
it was better for the economy, better for the projects, better
for putting people back to work if we could build these
projects in 10 years and then repay the Federal Government with
the revenue stream in 30 years. So we think that is a model
that really will work as America Fast Forward, and what can you
do to encourage, you know, other municipalities across the
country to do something similar?
And the other thing, if you could just touch on this, our
national freight policy. And I know, Victor, you talked a
little bit about. And I know I have nominated someone to be on
this advisory council. How is this plan going to be developed,
you know, in light of sequestration and other funding cuts? Are
we going to have money to develop the plan, implement a freight
policy in this country? How do you see that going? Because I
really believe that is going to be key to us putting people
back to work, being competitive, really working with not only
our imports into this country, but I see a national freight
policy as really being the backbone of exporting small
businesses', you know, services and goods.
So just those two things, if you could touch on the idea of
America Fast Forward and the idea of are we really going to get
a national freight policy and how are we going to implement it?
Thanks.
Mr. Mendez. Let me talk about the national freight policy
and how is that going to work. There are a lot of components to
that. It is going to be very complex. At the same time, we
understand and recognize the importance of having the resources
to actually execute a program.
I will tell you that I think one of the things that we have
done pretty well is utilizing technology, Webinars and
teleconferences and such to do the outreach throughout the
Nation. I have a little note here that says we did a National
Online Dialogue on some of the freight issues. We had, I
believe, over 8,000 people on that online dialogue, which is
pretty amazing when you think about it. And throughout the
Nation you are going to continue to see it.
And we see it just within our own operations. Instead of
going to a training session, we now do a lot on teleconferences
just within our own operating budget. So I think the use of
technology is going to help us get there, given that we have
limited resources.
Mr. Rogoff. I will speak briefly on the topic of America
Fast Forward. We obviously recognize the leadership that Los
Angeles has exhibited in this area, and the increase in funding
in TIFIA under MAP-21 is certainly a great opportunity to, as
you said, build a whole lot of projects that would have taken
30 years perhaps as soon as 10.
Just earlier this week--you asked what could we do to
better effectuate these things--one of the things this
initiative has done is really brought the TIFIA program and the
modes together. So, for example, the Regional Connector and the
Westside Subway in Los Angeles, which are two projects that
want to come in for TIFIA funding, will also use FTA New Starts
funds. And we were able to provide joint guidance between the
Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Department Sylvia Garcia
and myself to Art Leahy at the LACMTA telling him precisely
what steps need to be followed for both their process and our
process to get them to the finish line.
Now, I have to put out a word of caution as I did earlier
in the hearing. The sequester against the New Starts program
really is starting to call into question our ability to admit
new projects into the program because we can't fund the
commitments we have already made. But with that caveat, we are
working together with the TIFIA funding and the New Starts
financial plan together to move things forward more rapidly.
Ms. Hahn. Thank you.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Rice.
Mr. Rice. Thank you. Is this thing on? Test, test. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, members of the panel, for being here today.
I know you have a tough job sitting here getting grilled, but,
you know, I think that highway funding is incredibly critical
infrastructure. Funding is incredibly critical. I believe that
it is different than spending and that it is something we get a
return on. I agree with the comments that Mr. DeFazio had
earlier that we are being left behind in the world, we are
becoming less and less competitive, and I worry about that. I
think we have to invest in our infrastructure because American
competitiveness, American business, middle-class jobs, and our
entire economy are at stake.
And I believe we are our own worst enemy. I think with
overregulation and the cost and the delay that results that we
prevent ourselves from being competitive. We are strangling
ourselves. Bloated and inefficient Federal bureaucracy stifles
progress. These processes dramatically increase cost and time
for infrastructure delivery. And more and more middle-class
families lose their jobs to our competitors overseas. A
business that purposefully makes itself uncompetitive will not
long survive.
Mr. Mendez, you said it takes approximately 15 years,
earlier, to deliver a major project. How do you define what a
major project is?
Mr. Mendez. Well, you can look throughout the country and
probably talk to----
Mr. Rice. Is there a dollar amount? Is there a length of
miles? What is a major project?
Mr. Mendez. No, I think the dialogue that we have had has
been a general discussion throughout the Nation about major
projects that pretty much every State needs to move forward,
and on major infrastructure it takes a long time.
Mr. Rice. The Highway Trust Funds that we are concerned
about, and the trust fund being depleted, are those funds used
for anything other than highways?
Mr. Mendez. Well, the Highway Trust Fund itself does have a
Highway Account and a Mass Transit Account and some other
components, so not everything is geared toward investment
directly in highways.
Mr. Rice. What percentage is used, of the Highway Trust
Fund, what percentage is used for highway construction?
Mr. Mendez. I believe it is an 80-20 breakout in terms of
Federal share.
Mr. Rice. OK. And a lot of that money just goes back to the
States, right?
Mr. Mendez. Yes.
Mr. Rice. What percentage of it goes back to the States?
Mr. Mendez. I want to say close to 94 percent goes
directly, maybe even higher than that.
Mr. Rice. Well, how is the construction of Federal highways
funded then? If it is not funded out of the Highway Trust Fund,
how is it funded?
Mr. Mendez. Well, let met clarify my statement. The
majority goes back to the States. But, we also have a Federal
lands program where we do invest in our national parks, and
Federal lands. And so there is a portion that goes to that as
well.
Mr. Rice. What percentage? So you are saying we are buying
land for national parks out of the Highway Trust Fund?
Mr. Mendez. No, sir. We are improving access to Federal
lands. The roads within national parks are also improved. And
so those are the investments that we make within those
programs.
Mr. Rice. Are we building interstate highway projects right
now?
Mr. Mendez. I don't believe we have anything underway. I do
know that there are some plans in various States for adding
interstate miles.
Mr. Rice. All right. So when you build an interstate
highway in a given State, is that included in your numbers when
you say that the funds are distributed to the State?
Mr. Mendez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rice. OK. I read recently that South Carolina over the
last 50 years has been a donor State, that 93 cents on the
dollar that they have put in has come back, where most every
other State, I think there were six donor States, most every
other State has received pretty much dollar-for-dollar what
they put in. Is that still true?
Mr. Mendez. I don't believe so. As you are aware, I think
in the last 5 years, from 2008 to the current year, the Highway
Trust Fund has been bailed out by the General Fund to the tune
of $54 billion. So I think if you looked at every State and
looked at their return on their original investment, I don't
believe there are any donor States.
Mr. Rogoff. My understanding, Mr. Rice, there hasn't been a
donor State since 2010.
Mr. Rice. Two years ago.
Mr. Rogoff. Well, we are in 2013 now and headed into 2014.
But yes, sir.
Mr. Rice. OK. All right. You say current receipts on the
Highway Trust Fund cover about 60 percent of current funding
levels. Do we have a percentage of Highway Trust Funds that are
spent on these environmental regulations and other regulatory
compliance? Can you break that out, how much of that money is
spent on satisfying these bureaucratic requirements?
Mr. Mendez. I don't have that with me. I think we have
probably come up with some ballpark figures.
Mr. Rice. I sure would like to know that. I mean, is the
actual cost of building the road, you know, is that 80 percent
of what is spent out of the Highway Trust Fund? Are we
spending, 20 or 30 or 40 percent of our money on these
regulatory requirements?
Mr. Mendez. I will have to get that information for you.
[The information follows:]
The FHWA does not have any internal reports or data
regarding the amount of expenditures from the Highway
Trust Fund for regulatory requirements. However, the
following reports may be helpful to provide general
information regarding regulatory costs associated with
highway projects:
LU.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-09-36,
Federal-Aid Highways: Federal Requirements for Highways
May Influence Funding Decisions and Create Challenges,
but Benefits and Costs Are Not Tracked (2009),
available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/290/284235.pdf.
This report identifies the types of costs and benefits
associated with four Federal-aid highway regulatory
requirements: NEPA, the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirement, the DBE program, and the Buy America
program.
LU.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-13-
193R, Highway Trust Fund Obligations: Fiscal Years
2009-2011 (2013), available at http://www.gao.gov/
assets/660/651315.pdf. This report details activities
funded from the Highway Trust Fund, including for
purposes other than construction or maintenance of
highways and bridges. The report identifies the non-
highway Trust Fund money that goes to the Federal
Transit Administration, the National Highway Traffic
and Safety Administration, and the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration. Within the Federal
Highway Administration, the report separates funding
into three categories: highway and bridge construction
and maintenance; transportation enhancements; and other
purposes (such as safety, debt service and planning
activities).
Mr. Mendez. But just from my experience, I don't know if
you were here when I mentioned, I used to be a State DOT
director.
Mr. Rice. Right.
Mr. Mendez. I believe the actual investment in actual
infrastructure is somewhere in the 90-percent range, but we
will get that information for you.
Mr. Rice. OK, thank you. Are there any studies that have
been done on the economic cost in jobs and tax receipts of
delaying projects for 5 and 10 years to comply with all these
regulatory requirements?
Mr. Mendez. I don't believe we have any within FHWA. I have
got to believe somewhere in the industry people have done these
kinds of analysis.
Mr. Rice. OK, can you help me find those?
Mr. Mendez. We will help you out.
[The information follows:]
The FHWA does not have any internal studies or data on
the economic cost in jobs and tax receipts of highway
construction delays due to regulatory requirements. In
addition, we were not able to locate any such reports
amongst other stakeholders at the State and local level
or within private industry.
Mr. Rice. I appreciate it. Now, it says that MAP-21 has a
goal of 4 years for an environmental review. How long will it
take to put that in process? I know I heard Mr. Perry asking
you earlier about what your progress was. I mean, is it going
to be years before we can get that in place, months?
Mr. Mendez. Off the top, I don't have the regulatory
deadline, but like I said, there are so many rulemakings we
have to undertake under MAP-21. We are on target for almost all
of them, so I can get that information to you specifically on
that one. I just don't have it here in front of me.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79896.007
Mr. Rice. We need rules to enforce the rules that put in
place more rules.
Mr. Petri. Yeah.
Mr. Rice. And I think we are getting back to the source of
how we are strangling ourselves and stifling our economy, and
forcing American jobs overseas.
I thank you, Mr. Petri. I know I am over my time.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Michaud.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having
this hearing. This question is for Administrator Mendez.
Section 32801 of MAP-21 authorizes DOT to conduct a
comprehensive truck size and weight limit to commence no later
than 45 days after MAP-21's enactment and to be completed no
later than 2 years after that, the date the study is commenced.
Can you tell me if the study will be completed by August of
2014, 2 years after the start date, as required by MAP-21.
Mr. Mendez. Our target for completion of that study is the
statutory deadline November of 2014. Now, we are working very
hard to get that done as soon as possible. As I mentioned
earlier, that is a very complex issue, as you are aware, and I
know you have a very direct interest in that. We are in the
process of hiring a consultant to help with us the study
itself; there are a lot of elements that need to be balanced
between safety and economic issues and infrastructure issues,
as you are aware.
I know we have shared some information, specifically with
your office, that indicated we had started the study in August
of last year. I think that was an error, and I do apologize.
What happened last year in August is that the Secretary created
the Freight Policy Council, and I think that may have been
misinterpreted as we have started this specific study. That was
just part of the process to get ourselves geared up to
implement as a Department, multimodally, the overall freight
issues within MAP-21.
Mr. Michaud. Yeah. Well, actually my office was also told
last year that Federal Highway was expected to have a
consultant in place and the technical work underway at the end
of, you know, 2012. And what you are telling me today is you
haven't even picked a consultant yet. So that is really
concerning.
And I believe that part of the problem in the delay and the
reason why the delay in the study was due to Federal Highway
revising its solicitation for consultant services in order to
increase the number of vehicle configurations to be studied,
including various longer combination vehicles. These vehicles
were not statutorily required under MAP-21. What was required
under MAP-21 was for Federal Highway to specifically study six-
axle trucks.
I, along with my colleagues on this committee, have
introduced legislation that would give States the option of
permitting six-axle, 97,000-pound trucks on their interstates,
the option to do that. The intent of including this specific
configuration in the study was to help inform Congress and the
States of our proposal and the impact of the benefits of six-
axle trucks.
Giving that it appears that Federal Highway is nearly,
well, 3-plus months behind in schedule, including one delay to
add additional vehicle configuration that was not, I repeat
not, included in any legislation before Congress, I would
encourage Federal Highway to provide the study that was
required and asked for by Congress, the 97,000 pounds, six axle
before the deadline, so we might be able to deal with that
issue as we deal with the next highway reauthorization.
So since the department went above and beyond what the law
required, are you going to be able to provide this committee
with what we asked for, the 97,000 pounds, six axle, so we
might be able to include something in the highway
reauthorization. Any comment on that, what was specifically
required of Federal Highway? Can you provide us with that
specific study?
Mr. Mendez. Well, we are moving the study forward and we
are going to move it as fast as we can, and, we are going to do
the best that we can. We will provide to you a data-driven
objective study.
Mr. Michaud. But the problem is, you went above and beyond
what the law required, and that is what, I believe, is causing
part of the delay in what we had asked for on the 97,000-pound,
six axle. And I would encourage you to get us what we asked for
in the timeframe that we asked for it. And if you want to study
any other configurations, go ahead and do it. But I would
expect what we asked for to be done in the timely fashion that
we asked for it because of the reauthorization.
Mr. Mendez. OK.
Mr. Michaud. And so I would encourage you to consider that
as well.
Mr. Mendez. OK.
Mr. Michaud. I see my time has run out, Mr. Chairman, so I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Mullin.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, panel, for being here. It is an
honor for all of us to be able to serve this great country, and
I think we need to always keep that in mind, that we need to
put country first.
And, Ms. Ferro, I have got a question for you. By FMCSA's
estimate, the trucking industry will spend more than $300
million by July 1st, implement new rules for modifications and
preparations for hours of service. And in October of 2012 they
asked for an extension on this pending the court case. And your
office wrote back, said denying this request, saying they
didn't demonstrate the likelihood that the industry will suffer
harm due to wasted training resources or confusion.
Well, what is $300 million? I am a small business owner,
and the only reason why I sit in front of you today is because
I got frustrated with things just like this happening to me
when I realized our biggest competition is the Government that
is supposed to make things easier for us and safer for us. But
when we would get a response that says we didn't demonstrate
how much harm it was going to cause to us, yet by your own
study $300 million it is going to cost to implement it, and yet
it is not even out of the court case, how is this a good idea
and how was that decision made?
Ms. Ferro. Mr. Mullin, at the core of your question was the
word safety, and that really is at the heart of the decision
that I made with regard to that request. The Hours of Service
Rule was issued as a final rule over 15, almost 15 months ago,
and it made changes to the hours of service that drivers can
operate large vehicles in the context of reducing cumulative
hour accumulation. We kept the 14-hour workday, kept the 11-
hour drive time. But the concept of, under the rule that is in
place today, not the one that takes effect in July, going from
a maximum average workweek of 82 hours to 70 hours is at the
core of impacting, reducing the risk of cumulative fatigue for
a driver. So back to----
Mr. Mullin. Well----
Ms. Ferro. Go ahead.
Mr. Mullin. And I understand what you are saying, but since
1975 the industry has been doing a pretty good job, because 77
percent, we have less fatalities. It has dropped by 77 percent.
So the industry has been doing pretty good so far taking care
of themselves. And now all of a sudden we have got to have
someone else tell us how to take care of things. And yet, by
you own study also in 2009, you stated that 81 percent of the
time an accident happens with a truck it is the car's fault.
So once again, why do we keep putting more and more strain
on the backbone of our economy, on our truckers and small
businesses? Why are we putting more and more on their backs
when they have been doing a pretty good job so far taking care
of themselves?
Ms. Ferro. Well, let me reinforce again, at the core of the
mission and the mandate for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration is safety, saving lives by reducing the risk of
crashes involving trucks and buses. The Hours of Service Rule
and the hours within which drivers can operate is a core
component of that, and it is true over a period of several
years the agency developed and put in place a final rule
modifying those hours of service to reduce the risk of
cumulative fatigue.
That rule takes effect in July of this year. It has
tangible lifesaving benefits, and in fact is a cost-beneficial
rule. The number of $300 million was our own estimate in the
regulatory evaluation of the rule in what it would cost
industry and others to train up for the rule. It is an average
of 2 hours of training per driver. We understand and recognize
through our own analysis the impact that our rules have on
small businesses. As I mentioned earlier, the industry is small
business America. So that is a very important sensitivity. But
at the core of this rule is safety on our highways and all the
people that travel either in a truck, in a bus, or around those
vehicles.
Mr. Mullin. Ma'am, I actually have over 80 vehicles on the
road, too, and I can promise you, as a small business owner,
that is on our mind every day.
Ms. Ferro. I am sure it is.
Mr. Mullin. Constantly.
Mr. Ferro. Yeah.
Mr. Mullin. And it is at the core of our business.
Ms. Ferro. Yeah.
Mr. Mullin. But typically when the Federal Government
estimates the cost of implementation, they grossly
underestimate it. And it takes away from other things, like us
doing our job. And my only thing is, is I can't come up with a
good enough reason to tell individuals when they come up and
tell me, why can't we get an extension when the courts are
still hearing this? I say, well, I really don't understand that
either. It is still at the safety. I get that. But we are still
talking about real dollars that is coming straight out of the
pockets of, not your pocket, but my pocket.
It seems very simple. Why can't we just simply give an
extension? I mean, get a letter that states that they didn't
demonstrate that it is going to do harm? That is a slap in the
face. What is $300 million, if that is not harm?
Ms. Ferro. Tired drivers resulting in crashes on our
highways is harm to the traveling public. Again, the Hours of
Service Rule takes effect, goes into effect in July of this
year. The request to delay was related specifically to the
court hearing the case. Tomorrow are oral arguments on that
case. I have high confidence in this rule. We have also been
spending a tremendous amount of money, not tremendous, but
mobilizing for training, for implementation of this rule, and
it is very----
Mr. Mullin. The difference between your dollars and our
dollars is your dollars are given to you by our tax dollars.
Our dollars we have to go out and earn. And I am just asking,
please take this into reconsideration because it is going to
hurt us. We all have safety in mind, but we should be working
together, not against each other.
Ms. Ferro. And I would agree. We are. And the parties have
clearly an opportunity to make that same request to the court.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you.
Ms. Ferro. Thank you.
Mr. Petri. Ms. Esty.
Ms. Esty. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A couple of
quick questions coming from the State of Connecticut, which has
seen enormous infrastructure damage over the last couple of
years due to extraordinary storms and circumstances. So the
first question is a fairly specific one. It has to do with the
rural roads penalties on the 2-year. Frankly, we have had
extraordinarily low record of accidents on our rural roads, but
in the last 2 years, we have had--I had 3 feet of snow 3 weeks
ago in my community. You can imagine when you have those kinds
of extraordinary storms, as we did with Sandy, power lines down
on the roads, which have nothing to do with maintenance of our
roads, but has a lot of do with extraordinary storm events. We
would like you to consider the 2-year window and consider
whether you can take into account weather conditions or
something that would recognize that it should perhaps be a
longer window or should recognize when we had storm Irene,
storm Sandy, massive power outages, that that did rather
artificially spike our numbers, which again are not related to
the conditions of our roads or maintenance of them, but frankly
measures--truly acts of God outside of it.
We have some issues around tolling and would like you to
consider whether there doesn't need to be more flexibility. I
understand that MAP-21 provides some greater measure of
flexibility, but we have one of the most heavily used
interstate corridors in the United States, and 95, we are
looking at tolling right now in Connecticut, but the
restrictions with only three States being allowed to look at
this, the entire eastern seaboard has inadequate funds right
now to upgrade and repair our vital, vital highways, and we
would ask you to consider greater flexibility for recognition
of the reality that is in the Nation's interest to move people
and goods across this country, so greater flexibility on that.
Also the Governor is very concerned that we look at
allowing States to be considered entities that can apply for
T&A. They would like--Connecticut is a small State. We have a
lot of intermodal proposals that are too big for municipalities
that States end up coordinating. Connecticut also doesn't have
any county government, so you basically go from municipal
straight up to the State level, and so, again, recognizing some
of our smaller States that are densely populated that you would
consider, and I would be happy to work with your staff, I will
send more detailed questions, but really to flag these issues
for your consideration in our joint efforts to improve the
infrastructure in the United States and recognize, though, some
of our States which are heavily populated have had some
extraordinary demands in recent years, and we are struggling
with tough budgets to creatively use the funds that come from
the Federal Government in ways that allow us to do right by the
citizens of our States.
So if you could have any comments now, that is great, but
really mostly to flag those concerns and ask for your
assistance in working with us on providing flexibility we need
to do what we are all here to do, which is to improve the
infrastructure in the United States and improve the lives of
our citizens.
Mr. Mendez. Let me comment. I do appreciate the issues that
you raise. I think the best thing to do is have my office meet
with your office so we can run through your issues and see what
we can do. OK?
Ms. Esty. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mendez. Sure.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Barletta.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mendez, back on
the truck size and weight study. Pennsylvania, my home State,
has 5,000 structurally deficient bridges. Our neighbor State of
Ohio has 4,000 structurally deficient bridges. Adding 17,000
pounds to our trucks aren't going to make our bridges any safer
in Pennsylvania or in Ohio or in the hills of Tennessee or on a
winter road in Minnesota.
The interstate system was designed to move goods across the
country efficiently. Having a patchwork, jigsaw interstate
system where one State allows heavier trucks, one State does
not would be typical of Washington's involvement to take
something that works and mess it up.
But I worked on a weigh scale, and I could tell you it
doesn't matter if you add 10 axles to that truck. If it is not
loaded properly, it is not going to matter how many axles are
on the truck.
But my question is, do you agree that Congress should await
the results of the study before proceeding to consider any
further legislation dealing with heavier trucks?
Mr. Mendez. Well, let me just reiterate that our intent, as
you directed us to do, is to bring to you a study that is going
to hopefully address all the issues and then give you the
information so you as a body can debate what needs to be done
on a national basis.
I don't know that I necessarily need to comment on what
Congress should or shouldn't do. I think my role is to provide
you with the best information, the best study that we can
provide to you, as I said earlier, it needs to be objective and
data-driven, and then you can figure out through your body, and
through your deliberation, what is the best thing to do for the
Nation.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. I was in the pavement marking
business before I came to Congress, before I was mayor and came
to Congress, so I understand the importance of retroreflective
pavement markings. When people can see the lines on the roads
and the signs along the roads, it saves lives. And I was very
proud of that work. And I was also pleased to see that the
language that I proposed that would allow for easier access to
the Highway Safety Improvement Program for pavement markings
and sign retroreflectivity made it into the final bill.
However, I find it a bit disturbing that FHWA is still
proposing that each project should include data on the need for
these safety improvements, when the FHWA has conducted or
sponsored research on the systematic benefits of sign and
pavement marking retroreflectivity projects already. This seems
to be a waste of taxpayer's dollars to require data collection
on the need for sign and pavement marking retroreflectivity
projects, when the cost-effectiveness of these projects has
already been proven.
If the State sees a need to utilize these funds for
retroreflectivity projects, will you really require further
collection of more data and waste more time, when these
projects could be completed quickly and more efficiently?
Mr. Mendez. You raise a very good point. Let me take that
back to my office, let me get my people together and go through
this issue one more time, and we will get back to you.
Mr. Barletta. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Mendez. I think you framed it in a different
perspective, and I do appreciate that.
[The information follows:]
We do not believe an insert is required for this
exchange.
Mr. Barletta. Well, it is all about saving lives----
Mr. Mendez. I agree.
Mr. Barletta [continuing]. And here is a way we can do it.
Thank you.
Mr. Mendez. Thank you.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
hearing this. My question is for Administrator Ferro. Last year
the subcommittee had the opportunity to hear from you about
truck and bus safety programs, and I submitted a question to
you about whether or not you would be willing to come up with
an alternative for, and what I am talking about as hazardous
materials safety permit process, and coming up with an
alternative other than having to age out of, you know, whatever
the violation is that may not be--you know, that isn't related
to a crash or something.
And the alternative approach that I have been looking at or
that we have been pushing is for a--you know, either allow that
individual to, or company to, you know, put out a full review
of their safety management controls, or if the opportunity
arose or come up with some sort of an opportunity to provide a
corrective action plan prior to denying that permit.
And I very much appreciate your response, which you did
give me a response, and you did note that under the current
process there is no opportunity allowed to file corrective
action plans or demonstrate their fitness, but you also--and
you also pointed out, too, that under Section 33.014 that it
precluded you from making any changes until you had made an
assessment of the program.
But what my question to you is, and I don't see anything
that prevents you from requiring that you have to wait until
that assessment is done or taking some early action, and I am
just simply asking you if you can come up with something, some
opportunity to either, you know, bridge that gap between now
and when that is all finished and when you have completed your
study to be able to have some sort of a waiver process or some
sort of an opportunity to be able to--you know, to demonstrate
this process without having to be denied and then, you know,
coming back through, through that process, because it is a--you
know, this is something that is a pretty big deal to me.
Ms. Ferro. Congressman, I appreciate that. And following
our meeting with you, we did in fact make a pretty significant
modification to how it is calculated by averaging the violation
rate over an 8-year period instead of that rolling 2-year
average, and I think that helped a great deal to balance,
offset some of the, maybe the unfairness of the program to set
a better balance.
We have since met with stakeholders on this permit, and we
continue to drive towards--let me just simply say, I continue
to be open to opportunities to address the areas of concern
that stakeholders have raised.
The challenge for an appeal does exist today when it comes
to specific elements within their violation history. If there
is a specific violation and a permit holder feels was not
accurately applied, they go through the DataQ process. If there
is a history of crashes that the permit holder feels were
preventable, we consider that before we make a final decision.
This is one of the areas where we do consider preventability
when it comes to crashes.
That final step of allowing a permit holder that we have
denied a permit to submit a corrective action plan is the piece
that I really want us to finish the analysis that is--we are
required to do under MAP-21. I expect to complete that analysis
this summer, and so I would like to revisit with you what we
identify in that regard after we finish that study and see if
there are some interim steps we can take before we move to, if
we move to a full rulemaking in that regard.
Mr. Graves. Well, I am pleased to hear that you guys might
be done with that before summer, you know. And if that isn't
the case, I wish we could find some alternative at least to
bridge that gap between now and then, because this is really
a--I mean, this is a frustrating process, and we just want the
opportunity to be able to, you know, again, appeal that or at
least prove up that opportunity. And so, you know, the summer
is not far away.
Ms. Ferro. It is not.
Mr. Graves. It is not very far away at all, and--but I
would--you know, if we could come up with some sort of a way to
bridge that--to bridge that gap, that would be a big help. But
I look forward to talking to you about it and I do appreciate
your openness on this.
Ms. Ferro. Thank you.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Farenthold.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Mendez, I know Mr. Rice was asking you about
interstates currently under works. Interstate 69 in Texas is
currently in the works. We are converting some existing
highways up to interstate standards. So we are, in fact,
growing the system, but it is an awfully slow process and
awfully expensive process.
I wanted to ask about a couple of issues. We have spoken a
lot about the need for funding our infrastructure, and one of
the alternatives that is sometimes floated around is a vehicle
miles driven tax. And, frankly, my concern is with this, and I
express it when people talk to me, is can this be done in a way
that preserves people's privacy. I mean, are we talking--the
proposals have included, you know, GPS and things like that. Is
the technology in place to do this on a--anonymously and on
some sort of pay-as-you-go system where you don't end up
getting, you know, a thousand dollar bill when you renew your
license tags?
Mr. Mendez. There have been a few studies underway,
specifically in the State of Oregon, looking at the concept. In
fact, I believe they are beginning another pilot on that to try
and address the privacy issue. I believe, just thinking back to
some of the preliminary findings there, they believe that there
is a way to address the privacy issue.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. I was just curious as to whether
you thought it could be done and the technology was there.
I want to get into the weeds a little bit with MAP-21. That
is, you know, more specifically what we are looking at in this
hearing. And Section 1309 addresses accelerated completion of
environmental impact studies. It requires completion less than
4 years after the issuance of a notice of intent, but it is not
clear how this applies to projects where a notice of intent was
already issued before MAP-21, and, in fact, in some cases more
than 4 years before MAP-21.
Do you intend to clarify this in regulation or are we going
to see an issue where in order to meet the 4-year standard
stuff that was previously started is going to be pushed to the
back?
Mr. Mendez. No. We actually are working on a lot of these
issues simultaneously. There are a lot of provisions, including
that one that you are talking about, and we are working on that
with other Federal agencies just trying to figure out what the
issues are, and eventually we will come out with some guidance.
We are not there yet, but it is not being pushed to the back,
by the way. It is a very important provision.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. And in that rulemaking, I would
also encourage you to consider having the 4-year timeframe
applies to design-build projects as well, as they are not
following the traditional, you know, procedures.
Mr. Mendez. Right.
Mr. Farenthold. And let us go to Section 1317 now. It
creates a categorical exclusion for projects with limited
Federal assistance. And we all recognize that funding estimates
frequently change, and unfortunately frequently change for the
worse, but before and after a NEPA decision, is it possible
that a project could have a change order during construction
that would put the Federal participation beyond the threshold
established in the statute, and can we look at maybe a
regulation to address that as well?
Mr. Mendez. We, as I mentioned earlier, for that specific
item, we actually issued a notice of proposed rulemaking about
2, 3 weeks ago.
Mr. Farenthold. OK. I hadn't seen that. I apologize.
Mr. Mendez. Yes. So that is out there. We will bring in all
the comments. As I was reminded, we have a 60-day comment
period, and we will get that out, it seems to me, some time
this year. I think earlier I had said next year. It is probably
going to be this year.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. And also Section 1318 requires
DOT to do a survey on the use of categorical exclusions among
States and solicit ideas for new categorical exclusions. Have
you all thought about what type of other categorical exclusions
you all are thinking about?
Mr. Mendez. Yes. The survey actually was conducted and was
finished, I believe, late last year in 2012.
Mr. Farenthold. And so are we going to get public comment
and rulemaking as a result of that?
Mr. Mendez. That is correct. We are wrapping those results
into rulemaking, along with some other provisions that required
us to look at other CEs.
Mr. Farenthold. OK.
Mr. Mendez. So all that----
Mr. Farenthold. All right.
Mr. Mendez [continuing]. Is being wrapped up together.
Mr. Farenthold. Great. And I am running out of time. I did
have a quick question for Mr. Strickland. Having seen your
testimony that we are having a lot of success with our seatbelt
programs that have come through, are we reaching a time now,
especially in time of furloughing Federal employees, that we
might be thinking it is time to watch where we are spending our
money and not spend it on things that I think have become
common sense for most Americans?
Mr. Strickland. Well, Mr. Farenthold, I appreciate the
compliment about our success of our programs, but frankly, we
have to redouble our efforts on belts, recognizing the fact
that of our highway traffic safety fatalities half of them are
still unbelted. So that delta of 50 percent of the people not
wearing their belts constitutes about 16,000, 17,000 people.
So as opposed to thinking about maybe it is not the time to
continue to focus on belts, it is a time to probably get that
number up even higher so that we do not end up losing half of
our people to traffic crashes because of not wearing their
belts.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. Well, I see my time has expired.
I would like to explore that more with you, but we are running
late in the day. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for
being here today. I apologize. As is typical of the committee
process, we are in and out, so I may ask you a question that
may be somewhat redundant, but it is localized and it matters
to my district. And I would like to start first with Mr. Mendez
and then Mr. Rogoff. It is about the streamlining process. I
know that has been discussed. I have some specific projects in
Springfield, Illinois, that will benefit from this streamlining
process. They are about ready to undergo the environmental
review process that could be costly and add to the length of
time this project moves forward. I know those rules have not
been finalized yet, and if you have already responded to this,
I apologize, but, you know, this has a potential to fast track
our projects and it will improve transit throughout my
district. Do you know, can you tell me where you are at in
terms of this process and speeding it up?
Mr. Rogoff. Well, as Administrator Mendez just mentioned--
he spoke about the categorical exclusion rule--there have been
two rulemakings as it relates to categorical exclusions, one
specific to natural disasters that we were able to get out
quickly. We also have this NPRM on categorical exclusions,
which from the transit perspective perhaps holds the greatest
promise to shorten the environmental review period, because it
would enable some considerable amount of transit investments to
go through the CE process rather than an EA or an EIS process.
And that was actually a joint rule that we did together and
which is a model that we are hoping to emulate going forward.
That is now out for public comment with a goal of getting the
comments back soon. We are going to get some comments back, and
we are going to address them, but I don't expect so much
controversy that the publication of the final rule should be
delayed. So we are optimistic.
Mr. Davis. Great. Thank you very much. One last question
for both of you again, and this has to do with some mass
transit systems that I have talked to in my district,
specifically in Bloomington, Illinois, and Champaign, Illinois.
They are happy with the timeliness of some of the bus grants
and how they are being awarded, so thank you for that, but they
are a little concerned that once some of the new safety
requirements that are tied to MAP-21 are implemented, that
their ability to have access to the grants that make them able
to serve many of our rural areas could be impacted by that.
Are you working on ways to address these new requirements
so that the process still remains as good as it is now?
Mr. Rogoff. Yes, we are. I believe there is a fair degree
of unnecessary worry and anxiety on the part of--especially
some of our smaller grantees--about our new transit safety
initiatives, and I have sought to address them.
We have made clear that when we talk about launching a
safety management system approach, it is going to be scalable.
It is going to recognize that, first of all, transit by and
large is a very safe mode of travel. And our goal, as I said in
my opening testimony, sir, is to try to provide some value-
added guidance and standards without adding a great deal of
cost or bureaucracy.
We have a great opportunity here in that we are starting
with a blank slate, since we were prohibited in law from
issuing safety standards since 1964. MAP-21 changes that, but
it gives us also an opportunity--rather than having to tweak
the old--to really conceive from the ground up what is the
right approach for the right type of operator, and we are going
to do that. And I think once we do a better job of reaching out
and apprising people of our plan to add value without adding a
great deal of cost, we will get greater buy-in and less
anxiety.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you. Thank you all for coming today.
And I would like to yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
I ask unanimous consent that the record for today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any question that may be submitted to them in
writing, and unanimous consent that the record remain open for
15 days for additional comments and information submitted by
Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
Gentlemen and the lady, thank very much for being with us
this morning. And this hearing is adjourned.
Ms. Ferro. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]