U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–646 PDF 2006

IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETEA:LU

(109–76)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 7, 2006

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice-Chair

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Bushue, Sandra, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Association, U.S. Department of Transportation ................................................................................. 5

Capka, J. Richard, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration,

U.S. Department of Transportation .................................................................... 5

Glassman, Jacqueline, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation ........................................ 5

Hill, John H., Acting Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation ...................................................... 5

Kaveeshwar, Dr. Ashok G., Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation ............................ 5

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 95

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland ............................................................... 96

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 102

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 104

Porter, Hon. Jon, of Nevada ................................................................................... 109

Tauscher, Hon. Ellen, of California ........................................................................ 110

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Bushue, Sandra ........................................................................................................ 32

Capka, J. Richard .................................................................................................... 32

Glassman, Jacqueline .............................................................................................. 32

Hill, John H. ............................................................................................................. 32

Kaveeshwar, Dr. Ashok G ....................................................................................... 32

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

U.S. Department of Transportation:

Responses to questions from Rep. Petri ............................................................. 55

Responses to questions from Rep. DeFazio ........................................................ 77

(1)

IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETEA:LU

Wednesday, June 7, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES, WASHINGTON,

D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri

[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. PETRI. The Subcommittee hearing will come to order. I would

like to welcome you to today’s oversight hearing on the Implementation of SAFETEA:LU. The hearing will provide members with information on the progress of the Administration’s effort to implement recently enacted surface transportation reauthorization.

Members will be able to ask Department of Transportation officials

questions about the implementation progress of new programs and

regulatory action.

SAFETEA:LU strengthens the national commitment to increased

safety and reduced highway fatalities by increasing a new core

highway safety improvement program funded at over $5 billion, almost doubling Federal funding for infrastructure safety. The new

High-Risk Rural Safety Improvement Program targets funding for

safety improvements on rural two-lane roads where over 60 percent

of all highway related fatalities occur. And the new Safe Routes to

School Program funds sidewalk, trail and other infrastructure improvements that will encourage children to safely walk or bike to

school.

Funding for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration totaled

$6.3 billion, more than twice the amount authorized for these safety agencies under TEA–21. SAFETEA:LU funds several programs

that are specifically designed to improvement the movement of

freight, including the new Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program, the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program,

and projects of national and regional significance.

Several new Federal Transit Administration programs were created in SAFETEA:LU, including Small Starts, a program specifically geared to funding lower cost, fixed guideway projects and the

new Freedom Program, which provides formula funds to support

transportation services for the disabled that go beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, to reach some of the

70 percent of people with disabilities who do not work simply because they don’t have a dependable way to get to work.
2

The modal agencies of the Department of Transportation have

been very busy implementing these new programs and putting into

place the changes in transportation policy made in SAFETEA:LU.

Altogether, the are over 100 rulemakings, either legislatively mandated or required because of the creation of new programs or

changes to existing programs.

We have invited five modal administrators from the Department

of Transportation agencies affected by the reauthorization bill to

testify before the Subcommittee today. We welcome Mr. Richard

Capka, from the Federal Highway Administration; Ms. Sandy

Bushue, from the Federal Transit Administration; John Hill, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; Jacqueline Glassman,

from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; and Dr.

Ashok Kaveeshwar, from the Research and Innovative Technology

Administration.

The record of the hearing will be held open for 30 days. I now

yield to Mr. DeFazio for any opening statement that he would care

to make.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for engaging

in a little-known function of the United States Congress which I

think is very important, which is oversight. We do write laws, create programs, and it is also, I believe, our duty to see that the laws

are being properly implemented, the programs work well, and if

they’re not being properly implemented or the programs do not

work well, it’s also our duty to revisit those issues.

There are a couple of concerns that I have regarding, particularly, SAFETEA:LU. I think there is some, again, sort of in the

area of oversight or the difference between law and language and

hortatory language and mandatory language, there was a provision

in SAFETEA:LU which was a sense of Congress regarding Buy

America. Now, Buy America is a pretty deeply embedded principle

when it comes to transportation infrastructure and equipment. We

are running huge, massive and growing trade deficits. And yes,

sometimes we can get things that are subsidized in production

overseas or unfairly produced, and they are a little cheaper.

But the ripple effects through our economy through acquiring

American-made products, employing Americans, far exceeds any of

those minimalistic benefits. And so I do have some particular concerns about how the Federal Highway Administration is working

off of a sense of Congress on Buy America as opposed to a statutory

change.

And I would defy anybody to tell me that they believe you can

come to the floor of the United States House of Representatives

and say, we should source major components of major projects

funded fully with taxpayer dollars overseas. The few people who

would vote for it wouldn’t be back. And I think an Administration

that overestimates the importance of hortatory language, as opposed to statutory changes, is walking a very dangerous path.

With that particular caution, there are other concerns that are

not yet fully developed or implemented in terms of this legislation,

where I look forward to hearing from the Administration and making certain that we are on the right path, New Starts, there are

some concerns about implementation of safety issues and concerns
3

about recent disturbing trends in deaths and incidents on our highways and many other things.

So I look forward to the testimony today and look at this as the

opening of a long and productive dialogue over the full implementation of SAFETEA:LU. I congratulate the Chairman for holding this

hearing. The room should be packed, but it’s not.

Mr. PETRI. Well, it’s fairly full.

Any other opening statements? Mr. Blumenauer?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate our

moving back to take a look at what has happened with the reauthorization. Part of the concern with the 12 abstentions is that we

have lots of complexity, lots of interest. There was time taken, and

I know in things that I was involved with, to try and be clear about

legislative intent and being able to extend the partnership with the

Department of Transportation to make sure that we are doing so

even as sadly we are starting to get reoriented to go back for another reauthorization, which is less than four years away.

One of my primary projects in the reauthorization was the Small

Starts program, the idea to give flexibility to communities and the

Department of Transportation, with something that could be more

effective in terms of being able to give a choice to communities that

would be less than heavy rail or light rail. The program was in the

main modeled after a community street car bill that I had introduced with the aim of giving communities a means of supporting

fixed guideway transit systems in their communities, to give them

options and allow them to develop an expedited process. You know,

less bureaucratic function.

And most important, most important to be able for communities

to be able to consider land use and economic development benefits

while planning transit projects. That is the idea, to be able to reduce the concern for large scale suburban to urban movements on

roads and light rail, to be able to have development around these

extraordinarily successful projects.

Unfortunately, as I am looking from a distance and as I am talking to people who are representing the 84 communities around the

Country that are interested in street cars, some of which are already building it, the material we are seeing to date seems to fall

far short of the mark in terms of being able to look comprehensively at the economic and land use benefits. It looks like the only

fixed guideway that is going to be favored under this approach

would be bus rapid transit. I have got nothing against bus rapid

transit. We have got a project that is going forward in my colleague, Mr. DeFazio’s, district in Eugene that I think has great

benefit.

But the notion of the Small Starts was to have the forces of economic development and land use to enable people to move forward

with street car. And I am deeply troubled that what is coming forward in the Department at this point did not comply with our intent to provide the guidelines that will ensure that street car

projects can move forward. And I look forward to hearing more

from the Department, talking about it and being able to explore

that in greater detail.

I am also concerned about the impacts for local planning and the

way that the local planning provisions are being implemented.
4

There is a specific directive under the reauthorization that the

DOT not require metropolitan areas to disrupt established planning time tables and extended the updated schedule by three to

four years. But under FHA’s interpretation, according to the people

that I represent back home, from a fairly sophisticated NPO, that

is usually held out as a model for trying to do this right, they

would be unable to amend their metropolitan transportation improvement program on its established time line, unless it first

amends its regional transportation plan a year earlier than it is required to do.

So I have folks back home, despite explicit language in the reauthorization, that I thought we were in accord, who had been given

the choice to rush the regional transportation plan and produce it

a year ahead of schedule, push back the transportation improvement program an additional year, an option that appears to me to

be a bad one.

But more to the point, Mr. Chairman, it doesn’t seem to me that

that is what we intended with reauthorization. And I am curious

to begin exploring how the Department of Transportation is addressing the conundrum that my community is facing, and perhaps, I am sure we are not unique. But we take the planning process very seriously. I think any objective observer would suggest

that Portland has actually been a model over the last 20 years,

coaxing more out of the transportation planning process and the investment that we have made with Federal funds. And we have

been able to do this with Republican and Democratic administrations under the last three reauthorizations. And this does trouble

me, in terms of what I am hearing back home, and hope that we

can clarify it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Are there other opening statements? Ms. Berkley.

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much

for holding this important hearing on the implementation of

SAFETEA:LU, and thank all of you for being here.

This historic legislation, which Congress passed last year after

several years of work by this Committee, is vitally important for

my district. Southern Nevada is one of the fastest growing parts of

this Country, and Federal resources provided in SAFETEA:LU are

essential to ensure that our transportation infrastructure keeps

pace with our explosive growth.

Transportation officials in Las Vegas have several major projects

underway to increase highway capacity and efficiency and to expand our public transit system. Providing additional resources for

these initiatives is not enough, however. We must also ensure that

the new law is implemented in such a way that it complements the

efforts of our State and local governments rather than ties them up

with new and confusing regulatory burdens. I think that is the biggest concern that my regional transportation people have, is how

do we, as they move forward, planning the projects that are underway, that the rug isn’t pulled out from under them in new and different regulations that they have to go back to the drawing board.

So I am anxious to hear whether your testimony addresses that,

and if not, I will be asking the witnesses that very question when
5

I have an opportunity to question you. So thank you very much for

being here, and I look forward to your testimony.

Mr. PETRI. Now we will begin with the panel, led off by someone

who has been here before with the Committee, Mr. Richard Capka,

Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

TESTIMONY OF MR. J. RICHARD CAPKA, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; MS. SANDRA BUSHUE,

ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ASSOCIATION,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, MS. JACQUELINE

GLASSMAN, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY

TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION, MR. JOHN H. HILL, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DR. ASHOK

G. KAVEESHWAR, ADMINISTRATOR, RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

Mr. CAPKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.

It is a real pleasure for me and my fellow colleagues to appear

once again before your Committee. On behalf of Secretary Mineta

and the Department of Transportation, I want to express our genuine appreciation for this Committee’s hard work on reauthorization.

SAFETEA:LU authorizes a record level of investment for highway infrastructure, public transportation, highway and motor carrier safety programs and transportation research. It also provides

valuable tools for increasing transportation safety, managing congestion and streamlining infrastructure construction. Secretary Mineta has made timely implementation of this legislation a top priority, and our agencies have worked aggressively and together to

make the authorized funds available, to issue the guidance and

regulations necessary to carry out SAFETEA:LU, and to make

progress in our reports to Congress.

For instance, this past week, the Department delivered the Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plans Study to Congress on time on

the 1st of June. Overall, implementation is going smoothly, As you

know from our frequent visits to Congressional members and staff.

There is a lot of good news in today’s status report.

Turning first to highway safety, the new core Highway Safety

Improvement Program, administered by Federal Highways, significantly increases the national policy emphasis on safety and almost

doubles the resources available to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries on all public roads. We also thank the Committee for including

Secretary Mineta’s proposed incentive grant program for State primary safety belt use laws, and are pleased to report that this

NHTSA-administered program is working exceedingly well. Safety

belt use cuts the risk of death in a severe crash by about half, and

research has proven that the quickest and least expensive way to

boost belt usage is for a State to enact a primary belt law.

To achieve reductions in crashes involving commercial motor vehicles, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s medical

program is designed to ensure that medically qualified drivers op-
6

erate trucks and buses. As directed by SAFETEA:LU, the medical

program addresses revision of the diabetic exemption standard, establishment of a Medical Review Board, and development of a National Registry of Medical Examiners.

SAFETEA:LU also enhanced Federal Motor Carrier’s consumer

protection and enforcement authorities for shipment of household

goods. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is pursing

enforcement of Federal household goods regulations through civil

actions, is broadening distribution of household goods consumer

education materials and has implemented a number of provisions

through enforcement policy memoranda to field staff and State

partners.

Along with improving transportation safety, reducing congestion

is a major concern for the Department. Last month, Secretary Mineta launched the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on

America’s Transportation Network. This initiative will maximize

resources and authorities you provided in SAFETEA:LU to improve

operation of our surface transportation system. It will increase the

use of public transportation, encourage the development and deployment of new technologies and construction methods, and expand opportunities for private investment in transportation infrastructure.

SAFETEA:LU provides an historic level of investment in public

transportation, while establishing several new transit programs,

such as the New Freedom and Small Starts, and modifying other

transit programs, including New Starts. Well-designed New Starts

projects are critical pieces of the congestion solution, offering alternatives to gridlock in relieving pressures on our highways. The

Federal Transit Administration is making solid progress in advancing the substantial number of rulemakings necessary for implementation.

It is also engaged in broad-based outreach efforts, especially with

respect to the Small Starts program. Later this year, the Federal

Transit Administration will publish an NPRM covering both the

New Starts and Small Starts programs, and is issuing guidance to

ensure that the program can be effectively executed during the

rulemaking process. This will allow grantees to assess their

projects and submit them for possible Small Starts funding during

fiscal year 2007.

Effective transportation research programs also have a critical

role in the future of surface transportation infrastructure construction and operation. The Research and Innovative Technology Administration, or RITA, is leading the Department’s efforts to prepare the five-year Research and Development Strategic Plan required by SAFETEA:LU. RITA will continue to work to establish

RD&T, performance measures in advanced cross-modal research coordination efforts.

Mr. Chairman, although SAFETEA:LU increases funding for

Surface Transportation Research, Development and Deployment,

certain structural problems within research funding challenge the

Department’s ability to carry out the program Congress envisioned

in Title V of SAFETEA:LU. I would welcome an opportunity to answer your questions about the structural issues and program impacts.
7

To conclude, even as we implement SAFETEA:LU, we need to be

thinking about the next reauthorization. Demands on the surface

transportation system will continue to grow, and are expected to

exceed the resources provided by current funding mechanisms. We

want to work closely with Congress to find solutions to the imbalance.

On May 24th, the Secretary convened the first meeting of the

National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, which, as Congress directed, will explore options for the

future direction of our surface transportation system and how we

invest in and manage that system. The Department will continue

to support the work of the Commission and looks forward to its recommendations.

Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for this opportunity to

report on the Department’s implementation of SAFETEA:LU. We

are looking forward to continuing to work with you and will be

pleased to answer any questions that you might have.

And so I would ask permission to enter for the record a complete

statement.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Your statement will be made a part of the record, and we will

continue with Ms. Sandra Bushue, who is the Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Mr. CAPKA. Mr. Chairman, we have chosen for me to speak for

the entire team.

Mr. PETRI. OK, then we will go immediately to questions. Let me

begin with questions. There were two areas I wanted to explore

briefly. First of all, you mentioned just a little bit the special panel

that had its initial meeting about a week ago. I was hoping to be

at some of that. There was a lunch that the Secretary scheduled

and we couldn’t be there. It wasn’t his fault, or anyone’s fault, it

is the nature of these overlapping organizations.

But they are wrestling with a number of issues, and particularly

the sort of focus and funding of the Federal Surface Transportation

programs going forward. And there are a lot of challenges in that

regard. I wonder if you could expand a little bit on the meeting,

with a number of distinguished people with considerable background and different perspectives who have agreed to serve on,

well, there are two commissions, but they are working somewhat,

I hope, dividing up their labors somewhat. If you could expand on

that and talk about it a bit, we would appreciate hearing it.

Mr. CAPKA. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your question. This is one of the top priorities that we have within the Department, and Secretary Mineta has made this a personal priority.

He very much appreciated the fact that you were unable to join us

for lunch. But we did have an outstanding first meeting for the

Commission.

You are absolutely correct, sir, it is the Section 1909 commission

that met on the 24th. And this is going to be a challenge for the

members. There is a lot of ground to cover, and we have a requirement to report out to Congress next July, July of 2007.

But we have, as you pointed out, assembled a very impressive

group of commissioners, an excellent blend of backgrounds and tal-
8

ents from the private sector, public sector, academia, just a whole

host of the right kinds of individuals who are going to address the

issues that we have left before us.

While there are many details that the commissioners are going

to be working out regarding the pace and the mechanics of moving

forward, it is clear that they have identified the issue of needs, of

requirements, and then the resourcing of those requirements as

very explicit deliverables, as they took an initial look at the task

in front of them. The commission will be meeting regularly. Between physical meetings of the commission they will have conference calls to ensure that there is an efficient exchange of information and that the commissioners are kept up to speed on any of

the developments that may be occurring.

So Mr. Petri, we would certainly be interested in coming by and

giving you a personal brief on the progress of the commission, and

to any member who would be interested in following up as the commission meetings move forward.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. We ought to probably, once they are at

an appropriate state, have that meeting or series of meetings.

In your opening statement, you alluded to I think Section V of

the Act, and a number of structural and programmatic issues that

might be, maybe we need to do something about or maybe we

should know about. Would you care to expand on that part of your

testimony?

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I definitely would. As anybody

would find in a very complex and successful accomplishment, there

are always the unexpected glitches that seem to catch us after the

fact. There were some of those glitches with respect to our research

and technology program. There are some challenges that really put

the effectiveness of our Federal research program at risk. And despite an aggregate increase of about $43 million, more than what

we had under TEA–21, the added initiatives, such as the $51 million SHRP II, the statutory over-designations of some of the

projects, have eliminated basically the flexibility to conduct programs that have been important to the priorities of this Committee.

The bottom line, when we compare 2005 to what we have today,

is that we have about $30 million less in annual funding for the

critical research activities. This will significantly impact the Department’s Federal leadership position in the surface transportation research community. This leadership is vital for the development of the breakthrough technologies that will lead to construction efficiencies and engineering techniques that will improve safety and the long-term reliability and quality infrastructure in programs that we will be following to deliver the Nation’s transportation needs.

The Department’s leadership will be key to the integration of

technology into the efficient operation of our system to reverse the

existing trends toward a more congested and less reliable surface

transportation system. Just a couple of examples of some of the impacts are drastically reduced funding for important programs, such

as the Transportation Research Board core program and the Transportation Research Board’s research and technology coordinating

committee that provides us advice on how we move our program

forward. There is the inability to provide supporting data for the
9

Conditions and Performance Report and the inability to update the

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. And, there would be

a requirement to discontinue the longstanding publications and

other media through which we work our technology transfer.

We really are struggling to assemble a program and fear that if

we are forced to spread ourselves as thinly as it appears will be required, we will not be able to do the necessary things well. The effectiveness of the only national surface transportation research center in America, and a number of world class laboratories are, in

fact, at risk. Mr. Chairman, I would very much look forward to

working with you and the members of this Committee to help us

address the challenges that we have identified.

Mr. PETRI. That is very important. I must say, I haven’t read it

cover to cover, but I certainly have read the executive summary of

at least the most recent Conditions and Performance Report, or

maybe the one before that, and had the opportunity to travel to

about 18 cities and wave it as part of our effort. Because we used

that report as the basis for the original legislation that was introduced in this Committee, to try to fund surface transportation

projects that it indicated was needed to maintain our current level

of effort, or at least come close to doing that by that conditions and

performance report. It is an important tool as an overview of where

we are. You don’t know where you are going unless you know

where you are, so you can improve that.

Let’s turn to Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions.

To the FTA, and I think my colleague, Mr. Blumenauer, has specific questions about this, too. But I wanted to wave the issues

about the New Starts rules, particularly what is expected, time

line. I understand they were going to be out in June and they may

be delayed. Second, what is the status of the actual, where we are,

I am not exactly sure where we are in the rulemaking, and what

does the current thinking reflect in terms of streamlining. The idea

was that this is a new category of projects, and if we are going to

make it the same as New Starts, then Small Starts is New Starts

and we don’t need to go through all of this. But the Congress obviously, in my opinion and I believe the opinion of others up here,

was expressing the need to create a different sort of short form,

smaller dollar amount, different projects. Could you address that?

Ms. BUSHUE. Absolutely, Congressman DeFazio. The Small

Starts programs are the programs that are less than $250 million,

and they can get up to $75 million in Federal help. We are very

happy to say that we sent out an advance notice of proposed rulemaking back in January, and then we held a number of listening

sessions. And it was just amazing, the amount of comments we received, not only on the New Starts program, but most importantly,

on the Small Starts program. There was all kinds of excitement

and enthusiasm out there in the community for this new program.

I would like to thank this Committee for supporting it. It is a great

concept and a great idea.

Having said that, we just put our interim guidance for the New

Starts program on May 22nd. And on Friday, the Federal Register

will post interim guidance for the Small Starts program. Sticking

with the Small Starts program, we hope to have a noticed for pro-
10

posed rulemaking out by the end of this year and then the final

rule out by hopefully August of 2007. But there is again, I would

just like to say, a lot of enthusiasm.

And getting back to Congressman Blumenauer, your issue regarding the land use, we did hear a lot of comments when we had

our listening sessions and stakeholder hearings out in the Country,

a lot of comments about the land use. The FTA has listened to

those comments. I think you will be pretty pleased with the rating

process when you see the interim guidance when they are posted

on Friday.

Mr. DEFAZIO. So under interim guidance, are we going to be

making grants?

Ms. BUSHUE. Absolutely. We hope with interim guidance, again,

they are posted on Friday, by the time the grantees put together

their proposals, submit it to the FTA for evaluation, we hope that

we are going to be able to be issuing or making selections by July

of next year.

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. To the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, there is a provision in SAFETEA:LU, I am not

certain whether or not you are familiar with it, but there was $1

million to conduct a study on the risks associated with glare to oncoming drivers. In particular, this concern is raised by my own personal experience and also by some research done by the Consumers

Union, and that is these new high-intensity, bluish lights in the

spectrum, and the intensity at which they are transmitting and the

potential for causing glare disturbance to oncoming drivers, particularly on two-lane highways, which are more common in my part

of the Country than around here.

And my understanding is that there are ways to mitigate that,

but that we are using a very kind of anachronistic—the measure

that is being used is very crude in terms of lumens versus spectrum and disturbance. That is why we put the money in the bill

to do some research. Can you give me a status on where we are

on that?

Ms. GLASSMAN. Yes, sir. In 2001, we actually put out a notice for

comment on glare, as we did start to see more of these lights on

the road. We received a huge number, about 10,000 comments altogether.

The issue, though, we have from a safety perspective, is actually

finding a safety problem associated with this from a regulatory

point of view. We have conducted a number of studies, or surveys

of people, who tell us that while they find glare to be annoying,

they do not experience it as distracting. So we are watching the

safety problem very closely, and watching also our data very closely, to make sure we get ahead of this problem if it becomes in fact

a safety problem on the roads.

We are conducting a study with Rensselaer Institute currently.

We have a report to Congress due in 2007, and we are on track

to supply that report. It will be a comprehensive review of the risks

associated with glare, as well as potential countermeasures and

any unintended consequences that could arise if we go down, countermeasures that in fact then cause another problem that we didn’t

anticipate.
11

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. I think given the complaints, I think one can

intuit that although perhaps there are no survivors of head-on

crashes who attribute it to the glare, one can intuit that if that

many people saw fit to comment on a fairly obscure Federal investigation that there is a real and growing concern out there among

the public. I think, particularly with an aging population, the glare

problems are very, very important, and we need to get on them.

Then finally, to Mr. Capka, you heard my concerns and comments earlier regarding Buy America, the difference between an

often reinforced statutory guidance and hortatory language that

was in the bill. I would like to know what your current interpretation is and where we are on Buy America, particularly when most

major recent concern relates to a bridge project and the idea that

specifications call for very long beams that people know can’t be

made in the United States.

But the bridge doesn’t have to be built with very long beams that

can’t be made in the United States. It is a way to drive the procurement offshore, whereas you could have a design which would

incorporate beams that could be made in the United States, which

would fully comply with Buy America, and there’s a real interesting interplay here between some amount of State funding and Federal funding and the Federal law which of course preempts State

law.

So could you give me your short version response to that?

Mr. CAPKA. Thank you, Congressman DeFazio. You are absolutely correct. This particular issue has been addressed within the

Department and we have had discussions with members of this

Committee over the issue.

Let me first of all say that the Federal Highway Administration

takes very seriously the requirement to enforce the law of Buy

America. And of course, the basis for applying that law to any

project is a determination of whether or not that project is a Federalized project, whether there have been Federal monies expended

on the project. And we have been very, very consistent since 1982

or 1983, when the Buy America Act came into effect, in consistently applying the rules.

The Buy America determination on a project and the determination on Federalization of a project is basically done at the contract

level. California has the discretion as to whether or not they want

to build a project using Federal resources. If they don’t use Federal

resources, we have no Federal interest and have no ability to enforce the Buy America program. In this particular case, California

chose not to use Federal resources and, therefore, the Buy America

Act did not apply on this particular project.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Can we demonstrate, and have you had auditors

go in and look? I mean, money becomes pretty fungible. The State

of California gets a pretty generous dose under the formula of Federal money. They have a high gas tax. They raise money there.

How can we determine that there is no miscibility between the

State funds and Federal funds, no displacement? Or can they show

a dedicated revenue stream for the bridge? Is the bridge being totally built with bonding which has a dedicated revenue stream that

comes from tolls, or are they using some formula money or gas tax

money or mixed monies as part of the support for this project?
12

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, I can’t speak to the specifics of the type and

sources of money. But there is a mix. But we are very careful to

ensure that that mix of funds does not include Federal funds. And

as I had mentioned, we are very careful to ensure that we are enforcing the law consistently and appropriately.

Mr. DEFAZIO. I guess my time has expired, but just again, in reflecting on that, let’s say for simple purposes the State raises $50

with their gas tax and they get $100 from the Federal Government,

and they have a project that costs $60, OK, it is pretty clear some

of the money came from the Feds. If they have a project that costs

$40, they might argue that they only used State money. But what

other State interest projects did the Federal money flow to that

would have been funded out of, I mean, there is an interesting kind

of mix and/or problem here. I just want to be sure that we are

being as rigorous as possible. It is a grand mistake to offshore more

things, contribute more to our trade deficit, displace more American workers and manufacturing, particularly when it comes to

Federal tax dollars. We are going to be very, very vigorous in

watching that. So thank you.

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, sir.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. LoBiondo?

Mr. LOBIONDO. No questions at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are glad to have the

whole team here today. I will just ask my question to you, Mr.

Capka, and anybody can respond that you feel led to.

I want to first congratulate you on your 50th anniversary last

week of the Interstate system. I did not bring my pen, Ms.

Mayberry gave me one in Columbia last Tuesday. But we were

there to celebrate at the final line for I–73, as it comes, at least

from I–95 into Myrtle Beach. So we were there to do both of those

celebrations.

And I was just, with that in mind, do you foresee that we are

going to be expanding the Interstate system? Is there a new plan

to sort of look at where we are in the Interstate system and try

to develop an extension of the interstate system to include those

areas of growth that were not included in the 50 year plan that

was established by President Eisenhower?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, that is a very good question. And we in the Department are very concerned about a review of the existing Interstate system. It is 50 years old, as you pointed out. And 50 years

for a lot of infrastructure is the design life. So we do have concerns,

particularly in the area of capacity congestion, if you will. And as

I had mentioned in my opening remarks, Secretary Mineta has

launched a congestion initiative that will look across all modes,

across all sectors, to determine the best way to address congestion

systematically. Quite honestly, it will require us to take a look at

the Interstate, take a look at corridors. And take a look at technology on how we use the existing capacity that we have today and

then make decisions on what capacity needs to be adjusted in the

future, whether that capacity is on the highway Interstate system,

whether that capacity is on rail or other modes of transportation.
13

The commission that we discussed earlier is also reviewing that

particular issue as they look forward to the future of surface transportation.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I know you know the demographics as well as

I do, and I know there has been a shift to the south and the southeast. I just felt like, I hope the study will encompass that new

growth in the population, and the needs for additional highways,

so that we can start another initiative to address the new areas of

congestion. I hope that study will reveal that.

My next question, Mr. Chairman, if I may, the trust fund that

was established, I guess, to fund TEA-LU, is the revenues coming

in at a pace to keep us solvent?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, another excellent question. The issue of solvency

of the Highway Trust Fund has been raised before. We are confident today as we look at where we are that the Trust Fund will

take us through the duration of SAFETEA:LU.

As you recall, when we were structuring the Trust Fund, we

knew that we were going to take it down to zero. That was the intent. And if you take a look at the Treasury forecast, we are a little

below zero. If you take a look at the Congressional Budget Office

forecast, we are a little above zero. So I think at this particular

point in time, there are no signals that are telling us that we are

in jeopardy at this point.

However, we very much look forward to working with the Committee as we get a little closer and the future becomes a little clearer and the forecasts become a little clearer, if we do have a challenge facing us. But today, as we are sitting here today, we feel

confident that it will get us through the SAFETEA:LU period.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Blumenauer?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I would like to follow up on a comment I made in the opening here. I have been concerned that the

emphasis on the transportation system user benefit, TSUB, process, that is just savings in time travel, is going to be used as a

measure of cost effectiveness. The whole thrust of much of the

Small Starts and the enthusiasm for dozens of communities around

the Country for the street car is the economic development potential and preventing the trips in the first place. Rather than forcing

people to travel long distances from the suburbs, we have examples

where street cars inspire redevelopment along the right-of-way, so

that you are moving people, but they don’t have to have large time

travel savings, because they are not out scattered around the countryside in the first place.

Now, help me understand what efforts with the criteria that you

are working on that will get us away from narrow-minded application of TSUB, which completely misses the point of the program,

and why these people are enthusiastic?

Ms. BUSHUE. Certainly, Congressman. As I mentioned earlier,

the Small Starts interim guidance will be posted on Friday. I think

the industry will be really happy about how we are looking at the

land use and economic development. We certainly heard a lot from

the industry and from our grantees about the TSUB issue. So I

think we have addressed them in the guidance that you will note
14

on Friday. But most importantly, the guidance is not the end. We

realize how important the Small Starts program is. We are holding

a workshop next week with ACTA at the commuter rail conference.

We will also be holding another listening session in Chicago at the

end of the month. There is still a lot of time for comment, we still

have a lot of room for improvement, if in fact the guidance that we

put out Friday is still problematic to some of the grantees and industry.

I think they will be surprised. We have listened to that and we

certainly do understand the issue of the TSUB concept and the

need to have you get those modern benefits in a cost effective way.

Sometimes it is a little difficult. But we are working very hard with

the grantees and industry to remedy that.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Super. We will look forward Friday to the unveiling.

Ms. BUSHUE. Remember, that is not the end-all. We are still

open for comments and ways to improve if they are not happy with

it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate it is not the end-all and be-all.

But time is of the essence.

Ms. BUSHUE. Absolutely.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. We had the delay in the program, unfortunately, with the 12 extensions. And the whole thrust behind this

was to make it simple and common sense, because they are smaller

scale, not as expensive, we don’t need as much Federal intrusion.

Ms. BUSHUE. Absolutely.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. And the Committee language was very clear

about these multiple benefits. So I am hopeful that we are able to

quickly come to a resolution, so people in these 80 communities can

get on with business.

I mentioned earlier the concern about the planning, the inconsistency in terms of the planning time frame, that we are, the conflict between the metropolitan transportation’s ongoing planning

process, being able to go through the existing cycle, or having to

rush ahead and accelerate it and getting caught in the middle. Can

you help me understand, are they imagining this? Did we miss

something here?

Mr. CAPKA. Well, sir, I don’t know the specifics, but let me describe the intent as we move through implementation. We understand that sometimes when we implement new laws and new

rulemakings and those sorts of things, we will change the rules.

But it is our intent to provide a smooth transition. We don’t want

to turn a program up on its head or force an MPO to have to go

back to the beginning when the sole reason for the confusion or the

sole reason for the restart is the new law or the new rule that is

going into effect.

So I would very much like to learn about the specific problems

for the MPO that you have described, the conundrum that you had

mentioned earlier, and see what we can do to ensure that implementation does not have that kind of adverse effect.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I will submit to you their concern, because I

think it was clear that we didn’t want the metropolitan areas to

have to disrupt the established planning process. But an inability

to amend the metropolitan transportation improvement program,
15

unless it first amends the regional transportation plan a year earlier, seems to me to be violating that concept. But we will get the

details to you, and would appreciate guidance about how we unravel this.

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, I would be happy to take that from you.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Shuster.

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you

for being here today.

My first question deals with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration, the results of the multi-year truck crash causation

study that was just transmitted to Congress. Of course, the reason

is finding out why trucks crash and can we put new policies in

place or improve the policies for truck safety. I wondered what you

have found for primary causes of truck crashes. Have you started

to study the existing policies and programs and how best to utilize

the findings of the study to improve truck safety?

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Congressman Shuster, for that question.

That was a long study. It started back in 2000, and we have been

working on it for several years with a variety of people, including

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This study

was the largest of its kind. It went out and physically sent investigators to the scene of a crash. They spent considerable hours investigating all parties involved with it, analyzed the data. The purpose of the study was to give us large amounts of data, so that we

could use it, not only in the macro sense, but that we could provide

it in a public setting, so that other people who are skilled at analyzing data could have this made available to them.

The overwhelming initial response that we heard from that study

is that the driver is the predominant focus of our future efforts.

Therefore, we are taking our regulatory agenda and our enforcement program, we are filtering it through that lens of driver focus,

and we are going to be making changes in our program activities

in the next few years, through a variety of initiatives. We believe

that this data will help us in that process.

Mr. SHUSTER. My understanding is that about 90 percent of the

accidents are caused by driver action or inaction or error?

Mr. HILL. If I may follow up there, it was not that high. I would

be glad to submit to you for the record some of the specific percentages. I didn’t bring those with me today. But it was not that high.

It was lower. But it was predominantly with a passenger vehicle.

And I would just say to you that one of the provisions in

SAFETEA:LU that you folks provided us had to do with granting

us authority to spend grant dollars in our motor carrier safety programs for passenger vehicles in and around a commercial vehicle.

That was groundbreaking. We are just now starting that with the

States. We believe it is going to yield results. We think it will get

more people involved in enforcing motor carrier laws in our Country, and so we are excited about that potential.

Mr. SHUSTER. That brings me to my next question on the CDL

program, which has been around for about 20 years. It is my understanding that there were only a handful of States that were in

compliance, or substantial compliance, with the CDL program. Is
16

that accurate, and can you give me a number on how many States

were or were not in substantial compliance?

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Congressman Shuster, again, that is a

very interesting point. As you know, in the Motor Carrier Safety

Improvement Act in 1999, you gave us several things that you

wanted us to do to improve the commercial driver’s license process.

About 15 provisions were given to the States in order for them to

adopt them. Our normal process is to give the States three years

to go through that process of adoption, changing their laws to conform and so forth, including their IT systems.

As of right now, the States are making great progress. We have

only had to declare one State in substantial non-compliance up

until this year, and then just recently, after we went through a series of reviews, we had to do that with three or four other States,

who found in their implementation that they didn’t have the laws

to implement it the way that they were supposed to.

So to answer your question, we have two phases. There are people who are making legislative changes, and then there are those

who are doing their information system changes. And generally,

the States are in compliance with the statutory provisions.

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, if we passed it in 1999, when did the clock

start ticking on the three years?

Mr. HILL. When we started with the regulations, which were promulgated in 2002, September, I believe, 2002. So it was September

of 2005 when they were supposed to be in compliance.

Mr. SHUSTER. OK, thank you for that answer.

Mr. HILL. You are welcome.

Mr. SHUSTER. Another question I have, I guess it would be directed to Transit or Highway Administration, or both. The Governor of Pennsylvania has decided that he is going to flex about

$400 million of Pennsylvania’s annual allocation out of the Highway Trust Fund. The first question is, it is my understanding that

you can only flex that money for capital investment, you can’t do

it for operations. Is that accurate? That is correct?

Ms. BUSHUE. That is correct.

Mr. SHUSTER. Second question is, has any State flexed that sizeable amount of one year’s allocation from highways to transit systems? On a percentage basis.

Ms. BUSHUE. According to our advisors back here, they are saying that New York and California have. I am not sure, do we know

that percentage? We can get back to you with that, Congressman

Shuster.

Mr. SHUSTER. Is that dollar amount or is that percentage? I

guess the only way we can do a fair comparison is by percentage

of what they get. If you could get me that, I would appreciate it.

Ms. BUSHUE. We certainly will.

Mr. SHUSTER. And the third question is, from what I understand

and what I see, Pennsylvania is going to flex that money. And it

is not going to solve the problem for the transit system in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. It is basically a band-aid. Do you have any

oversight at the Federal Highway Administration or Transit that

can say, if you are going to flex that kind of money, you really

ought to be coming to a fix, a long term fix for it, not just an infu-
17

sion of cash that is probably going to happen this year and then

next year and then down the road?

Mr. CAPKA. Congressman Shuster, I can say that our Division

Administrator and his office are working very carefully with the

Pennsylvania DOT to ensure that this particular situation is being

managed appropriately. And there is a planning process that they

are going through right now that requires our review.

Mr. SHUSTER. ‘‘Managed appropriately’’ is pretty vague. According to whose managing and appropriate. If you saw that this was

just a band-aid and a limited term fix to a situation instead of a

long term situation, because it comes down to what is fungible, and

they are going to put it into capital, but they are going to just shift

their money around, and it is the operation that is really significant, has significant problems. So would you have that ability to

say stop, we don’t believe what you are doing is in the long-term

best interests of using Federal dollars?

Mr. CAPKA. Not knowing the complete specifics of the situation

there, what we would look at is the sustainability of the program,

the initiative, from a fiscal perspective, and ensure that the program is fiscally constrained. I think that the context around that

would help us decide what action we would or would not want to

take.

Mr. SHUSTER. Could you or whoever is dealing with that situation contact our office and keep us posted? Because it is a huge

concern to me, coming from rural Pennsylvania, and I think many,

many Pennsylvanians. Because of that $400 million, about $380

million is going to go to Philadelphia, which I guess happens when

the Governor of Pennsylvania is the former mayor of Philadelphia.

But anyway, that is our problem in Pennsylvania.

Thank you very much, and again, if you could keep us posted on

that, we certainly are very concerned.

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, we will follow up with you on that.

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Ms. Berkley?

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have three questions that are all Las Vegas valley specific, as

you can well imagine. The first is, I had a conversation with my

local transportation officials, and they have expressed concern that

existing planning cycles may be disrupted by regulations that the

FHWA and FTA have issued or will issue to implement

SAFETEA:LU. Can you give me assurances that you won’t be

changing the rules for our local government officials in the middle

of the game, in the middle of their planning process? That is my

first question.

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, ma’am. I think I would respond the same way

I did to Mr. Blumenauer, with his question.

Ms. BERKLEY. If we are having a specific problem with the

project that you know?

Mr. CAPKA. Absolutely. Again, I think the philosophical approach

is not to interrupt something abruptly with a change, but to provide a good transition that allows everybody to catch up, and not

to create the conundrum that was described earlier. But I will offer

the same to you and your community to take a look at what the

issue is and to work with you on that.
18

Ms. BERKLEY. I appreciate that. My second question is, a provision in SAFETEA:LU gives priority to diesel retrofit projects in

CMAQ. My local transportation officials have planned to use these

funds for eligible projects, including our intelligent transportation

system, in purchase of hybrid buses. How is this provision being

implemented to ensure that worthy projects other than diesel retrofits will continue to be funded?

Mr. CAPKA. We are working the final guidance with EPA on this

one. This is one that we are working jointly with the Environmental Protection Agency. And again, if there are specific issues

that are coming up, I would be more than happy to work with you

on that.

Ms. BERKLEY. I think the two that we are most concerned about

is our intelligent transportation system and the hybrid buses, because we are getting, the money is coming out of the diesel retrofit

projects. Right now, those are eligible projects, but we wouldn’t

want them to be come ineligible all of a sudden.

Mr. CAPKA. I will follow up with you on that and just make sure

that we are both looking at the same facts and provide some help

and guidance there.

Ms. BERKLEY. OK, and then of course the third is, and I know

a number of my colleagues have mentioned the Small Starts program that was created in SAFETEA:LU for fixed guideway projects

costing under $250 million. It is my understanding that this will

be eliminated in the 2007 transportation appropriations bill approved in committee yesterday. If that is the case, and I would appreciate some clarification on that, but if that is the case, what

would the effect of that elimination have on these projects? And the

one that comes to mind is the MAX bus project in southern Nevada. Right now it is eligible for Small Starts funding. If it is eliminated in 2007, what do we do?

Ms. BUSHUE. Well, I certainly hope it wasn’t eliminated. I think

what they did, we have not seen that language, I think you are

talking about the full Committee House Appropriations markup.

We have yet to see the language. We understand they put a freeze,

we are not really sure what that means. Again, the language has

not been released, and FTA has not had the opportunity to evaluate it.

But I do know that the Appropriations Committee has been very

supportive of the Small Starts program. So I guess we will have to

wait and see. But I don’t think it was an elimination, it was a

freeze. And again, we don’t know exactly what they meant by that.

Ms. BERKLEY. Can you let me know?

Ms. BUSHUE. Absolutely.

Ms. BERKLEY. Because again, this MAX bus project is very important to us. And if the money is no longer there, what happens

to the project?

Ms. BUSHUE. Absolutely, Congresswoman Berkley. We will certainly get back to you.

Ms. BERKLEY. Thanks a lot.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Coble.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for my belated arrival. We had a Judiciary markup, and that is why I could not be here earlier.
19

Mr. Hill, let me put a question to you on an issue on which I

have done some considerable work and am very interested. I am

concerned that the advance notice of proposed rulemaking on insulin-treated diabetes possibly creates broad restrictions on the kind

of driving that properly screened individuals with insulin-treated

diabetes can do, such as being restricted to only certain types of

driving, like local or short haul routes. What sort of restriction does

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration have in mind and

what is the basis for restricting the type of driving an insulin-treated commercial driver can do?

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Congressman Coble, for that question. I do

know that you and Representative DeFazio have been heavily involved in this issue, and I am aware of the recent correspondence

that you have sent to our office concerning this matter, and I would

like to address your concerns. First of all, let me just say in a general sense, our standards for commercial vehicle drivers, we are

trying to weigh the balance of making sure that we implement the

provisions in SAFETEA:LU, which we have done, by the way, and

I will explain that more fully, and then making sure that we have

been deliberative in our consideration of the safety concerns for the

general public in allowing people with some kind of impairment,

potentially, to be drivers.

To answer your specific question, as you know, in SAFETEA:LU,

you passed legislation that said we are no longer permitted to require three years driving experience in terms of having that experience before we create an exemption to the rule that is now in place,

that says insulin-dependent drivers cannot operate a commercial

vehicle. We have implemented that, in November of 2005 we published a notice that said we would discontinue that practice. We

are in the process now of reviewing applications. Thirteen drivers

are presently on the road. When they get an exemption to operate

in interstate commerce, there are no restrictions placed on them.

They are permitted to drive just like another driver would drive.

We have 40 other drivers that were posted in the Federal Register just today for public notice and comment. Another 30 are in

process, and we have 400 applications that we are currently reviewing that would allow for them to eventually be granted an exemption under our current rule.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you for that response. I am, Mr. Hill, in no

way attempting to compromise safety. But by the same token, I

want to be sure that insulin-treated commercial drivers are not

beneficiaries or victims of inordinate restrictions, if I am coming

through to you.

Mr. HILL. Congressman Coble, I appreciate your concern for safety, because we share that, as our agency has to deal with that on

several levels. One of the further considerations that I would just

say to you is that we are going to be starting a medical review

board, and they are going to be convening in August of this year.

That medical review board will be looking, as one of its first

projects, at the whole issue of diabetic drivers. This rule that we

have had in place for banning insulin-dependent drivers for driving

in interstate commerce has been with us for several years. One of

the goals of the medical review board is to make sure that our current medical regulations are consistent with current science and
20

data, so that we can make accurate assessments. Because things

have changed in those years, and we want to be sure that we are

treating drivers and the public with due measure of safety and also

accommodation that needs to be made.

Mr. COBLE. And if you can keep us current on that matter, I

would be appreciative to you.

Mr. HILL. You are welcome, sir, and we will.

Mr. COBLE. It is good to have all of you with us. Mr. Chairman,

I yield back.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Coble.

Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First question I wanted to ask was, if I have local communities

and they are looking at projects that have been authorized in

SAFETEA:LU, how can they receive assistance in planning for if

there is going to be a difference between authorized and obligation

amount? What would you suggest I can do to help in their planning

process as they look forward?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, that is a very good question, and it is one that

is asked regularly. Our division offices are well equipped to handle

those questions locally. But even here in Washington, we would be

more than happy to help. It is a matter of the difference between

contract authority and obligation limitation. And it is about an 85,

86, 87 percent of the contract authority will actually appear as

something the communities can program and work.

In addition, we have had the 1 percent rescission. There are a

few others that kind of eat away at the amount of money that appears in the bill itself. But I think explaining that and laying it out

is something we can do and should be able to do, and sir, if you

have some specifics, I would be more than happy to handle that for

you.

Mr. MATHESON. And is it your sense that there is going to be reasonable stability or certainty of how that is going to play out after

the next two, three, four years?

Mr. CAPKA. It varies a little bit from year to year. But I think

we can provide enough stability that would allow for the planning

to occur that needs to occur.

Mr. MATHESON. Next question I want to ask about was, in

SAFETEA:LU there were a number of provisions included to try to

streamline process, to allow projects to move forward in a more

timely manner. I want to ask a general question about your

thoughts about how that has played out so far, and if there are unanticipated impacts, either good or bad, that have come from that

effort.

Mr. CAPKA. I think the SAFETEA:LU provisions are working

pretty well. In fact, there are a number who have already taken

advantage of the 180 day statute of limitations within the NEPA

process on when suits can be filed and those sorts of things. We

have already had a number of folks take advantage of that. We

have also had a number of folks taking advantage of being able to

assume the categorical exclusion responsibilities.

We have another pilot program that you are very well aware of.

We have five States who will look at assuming the entire environmental review program from us. Of course, they need to have the
21

right laws in place, which they are working on right now. And we

will work with those States. So I think SAFETEA:LU, even at this

very early stage, is showing some very positive signs with respect

to the efficiencies there.

Mr. MATHESON. That is good to hear. One more issue I want to

raise is, when a project is listed or designated as a high priority

project, can you give me a description of what the real impacts are

of that and how that positions that project for safety improvements?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, there is a category of high priority projects, of

course——

Mr. MATHESON. I meant high priority corridor.

Mr. CAPKA. High priority corridors. Yes, sir, there is provision for

the high priority corridors. A number of the projects have been designated already. So there is a requirement that we would need to

walk ourselves through to get those projects up and running. But

the discretion, to a large extent, isn’t there for us to move from one

location to another, because they have been designated.

Mr. MATHESON. Once it has been designated, is there some action or set of actions that the State Department of Transportation

has to take with you in this regard, or is this more at your end?

Mr. CAPKA. There are requirements for our division office to be

involved. I would very much encourage the discussions to occur just

as soon, as early as possible, so that we can lay out the course in

front of us.

Mr. MATHESON. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I

yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Moran?

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think this is a question

for Mr. Hill. I was just wanting to know the status of hours of service in regard to some exemptions that were created as well as just

the general status of the litigation and how we are proceeding and

what kind of results are, what survey or test results we would have

on truck safety.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Congressman Moran, for that question.

Hours of service has been living a lot of our lives here in the last

few years. We acknowledge that the Congress did pass several provisions in this last SAFETEA:LU that we wanted to get right on

in making sure that people understood those exemptions. So we

put out policy memoranda that gave guidance to enforcement officers, so that they would know how to go ahead and enforce those

provisions, even though we don’t have the regulation fully implemented yet, because it takes some time for us to implement a regulation once you pass the law. We believe those were self-executing,

so we believe the policy memoranda are effective for enforcing

those. But we do plan to have an omnibus bill next year that will

allow for that to be included as a regulatory follow-up to those policy memoranda.

As far as the hours of service lawsuit, I can’t really get into details, but it is progressing. They are expecting to exchange briefs

this summer, and we anticipate some kind of a hearing before the

court later this summer or early fall.
22

Mr. MORAN. What were the exemptions created in SAFETEA:LU

in regard to hours of service? Was it two or three or more?

Mr. HILL. There were more than that.

Mr. MORAN. And my question is, you have issued policy statements. Are they being treated the same as if the regulation was in

place, is that what you are telling me?

Mr. HILL. Yes, Congressman. We had our attorneys look at this,

and we were, because of our regulatory workload, we are trying to

expedite things and make sure that the will of the Congress is

being enforced now. Our attorneys believe that those laws, as written by Congress, are enforceable. But we wanted to give the appropriate guidance, and yes, to answer your question, we believe that

the roadside officers are treating them as they would in terms of

the law.

There are some nuances to some States having differing laws

that they may need to adopt. But we believe that the policy guidance has the effect of enforcement.

Mr. MORAN. And I am sorry, I was confused in part of your response about a piece of legislation next year? Is that what you were

suggesting? Or something omnibus within the Department?

Mr. HILL. That would be an omnibus without our own department. It is an omnibus rule that would allow us to take several of

these provisions that we believe are self-executing and put them

into a single bill to move them on quickly, and it will cover all of

these.

Mr. MORAN. I still am curious if it is a reasonably short list, or

if you have it in front of you, I am curious as to what additional

exemptions are created in SAFETEA:LU.

Mr. HILL. I am not prepared to go into a lot of detail, but I will

tell you that we have them in agricultural commodities, groundwater well drilling, utility service workers, grapes, for grape haulers west of Interstate 81 in New York, propane deliveries and 100

air-mile radius for movie producers.

Mr. MORAN. I am familiar with all of them except the grape producers. Thank you very much, Mr. Hill, and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Baird?

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our panel. My

understanding is, my good friend from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, asked

a question about Buy America. I have great concerns about this

issue. And I would ask, first of all, if members of the panel believe

it is important for the United States to maintain fundamental domestic industries like steel fabrication and steel manufacturing. I

will just go down, beginning with Ms. Glassman, do you think that

is important?

Ms. GLASSMAN. I will hand that to Mr. Capka.

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, the answer to your specific question, ′′Is it important to maintain the industries?′′ is, ′′absolutely′′.

Mr. BAIRD. My question arises because it has been the recent

policy of your department to find ways to allow communities to circumvent the Buy America Act. I refer to the Bay Bridge project,

but there are others.
23

I have a second, related question. We had a hearing in this very

panel a week or so ago about increasing public-private partnerships, where private entities are being contracted to manage highways. This seems to be a trend of the future, and I understand that

with limited capital, there may be some reason to argue for that.

Have you given any thought to what implications that has, visa-vis Buy America? In other words, let’s suppose somebody has contracted to manage a section of highway. Do they have to comply

with the Buy America Act as part of that agreement?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, our implementation, our oversight of the Buy

America Act has been very consistent over the last 25 years, since

the Buy America Act has been in effect. We take very seriously our

requirement to ensure the law is appropriately applied and enforced.

The Buy America Act applies when there is a Federal interest in

a particular project and when there are Federal dollars being

spent, when there is a Federal loan, such as TIFIA, that is being

applied against a specific project, then Buy America and the other

appropriate laws that are attached to the Federal interest also

apply. And we ensure that they are enforced.

Mr. BAIRD. I guess the devil is in the details in terms of how you

define a project. if you define a project in a narrow enough way,

you can say that particular portion of the project doesn’t have Federal funds associated with it, therefore it is exempt.

Mr. CAPKA. That is correct, sir. And our application of the definition of project has remained consistent over the last 25 years. So

we haven’t varied from that.

Mr. BAIRD. I would actually dispute that. But what about these

public-private partnerships?

Mr. CAPKA. Well, the public-private partnerships, I would have

to know a little bit more of the details. Of course, it is an evolving

area that we are all learning from as we go forward. And I am sure

that we will continue to learn. But if there is no Federal interest

in what this public-private partnership is doing, then there would

be no attachment to the——

Mr. BAIRD. Well, let’s suppose, for example, that an entity wants

to build a bridge somewhere, and they contract with a private capital firm to construct the bridge and to manage the bridge. The

bridge is integral to the Federal highway system. It would be

meaningless without the roads on the one side and the roads on

the other side, which are federally funded. But the bridge, per se,

is to be funded with private dollars and managed by a private entity. Is that subject to Buy America?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, I haven’t had that personal experience to review

that kind of a situation. But I would tell you that I would sit down

with my legal staff and my——

Mr. BAIRD. I can tell you what they would tell you.

Mr. CAPKA.—to help me negotiate my way through those issues.

Because it is important to make the call correct.

Mr. BAIRD. They will find a way around it. And here is the problem. We are rapidly losing steel fabrication capacity in this Country. It is a fundamental infrastructure for safety, for travel, transportation, et cetera. If we lose this and one day on the west coast,

where I reside, an even larger earthquake happens, and our steel
24

bridges, strong though they are, fail, we will be dependent on foreign countries to rebuild our own domestic infrastructure. That, I

believe, is being contributed to by this Administration and by your

policies. I think it is a huge mistake. And for the record, I want

today to put that on the record, so that when that happens and we

need to go to the steel fabricators, somebody says, you know, they

closed about 10 years ago, because we had some major projects that

went to China or went to Korea or went to Japan, because in the

short term, somebody wanted to save a little bit of money. And in

the long term, they put Americans out of work, damaged American

infrastructure, and we lost a critical fabrication industry, which we

can’t rebuild. Once those companies go down and the work force

leaves, and the land turns into condominiums, we will never rebuild it. And we will be totally dependent to rebuild our infrastructure on a foreign country. And that is a heck of a bad mistake. And

I think this Administration and your department are contributing

to it.

I yield back.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Bushue, I can ask you this question, I think we have made

some progress, and perhaps you can bring us up to date. The proposed Trans-Hudson Tunnel, a lot has been written about it, a lot

has many times been discussed. That is an extremely critical

project, tunnel project for the New Jersey-New York region, as we

are currently at capacity, beyond, with a 100 year old tunnel which

is providing 150,000 trips into and out of Penn Station, which you

know those tunnels are all falling down. Serious problem.

We await approval, and I know there was a meeting with Mr.

Wyington of NJK. Could you bring me up to date, and the rest of

the committee up to date as to the progress we are making on that

tunnel, just for a few minutes, give us a capsule picture?

Ms. BUSHUE. Sure, absolutely. Well, first, I am going to be meeting with him next week, as I am up in New York for the APTA

PRO conference. I am going to be touring the Hudson-Bergen Transit line. I understand that we will be meeting with—I think we

refer to it as the ARK project.

Mr. PASCRELL. That is correct.

Ms. BUSHUE. But as it is today, they are looking to go into preliminary engineering. I think we are waiting, as I understand it

right now, for their financial proposal. I think we have part of it.

I think they have some pieces that are missing. And we have asked

for some additional information. But we are looking at it, and it is

certainly on our radar.

And you made a really good point about the tunnels. I had the

pleasure of spending some time up in New York, for two days, the

MTA gave me an extensive tour of what’s going on up there. And

those projects are extremely complex. The tunneling is just totally

amazing. I didn’t know New York City has really a city underneath

it, almost, with all the tunneling they have involved. But it is a

very interesting transit project.

But we are very much familiar with the ARK project, and we are

certainly giving it attention, sir.
25

Mr. PASCRELL. This would be a large step forward for the entire

area, as you well know.

Ms. BUSHUE. Certainly.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Capka, first of all, I want to congratulate you

on your recent confirmation. During your Senate confirmation

hearing, you committed to allowing New Jersey to continue to follow multi-year funding formulas for capital construction projects. I

just want you to reiterate that for us, if you would, take a minute

to do that.

Mr. CAPKA. Well, sir, thank you very much first of all for your

congratulations. I really appreciate that. Secondly, with respect to

the fiscal constraint process that we and the New Jersey DOT are

working, we are not so concerned about the process that the Department uses to get to its end state. But we just want to make

sure that the process itself is fiscally constrained. In other words,

that they have the resources to finish what they start.

I think we are in pretty good shape right now, that we won’t see

any further problems with the way New Jersey is handling this.

That is our test. It is more the outcome than the process of getting

there.

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you.

Ms. Glassman, you are Acting Administrator?

Ms. GLASSMAN. Deputy Administrator.

Mr. PASCRELL. Deputy Administrator. Administrator Glassman, in all, SAFETEA:LU provided approximately $1.5 billion in incentive grant funding to increase vehicle occupant protection. As you

know, whiplash is the most common and annoying type of injury

in motor vehicle crashes. It is by far the predominant injury in rear

impact crashes and generates billions of dollars in medical costs.

There is innovative research being done in North Jersey right now

with the goal of significantly decreasing these kinds of injuries.

This approach involves a contoured seat design concept, I don’t

know if you have seen it, that will help control the interaction between the torso and the seat back in order to preserve the spinal

curvatures during a rear impact collision.

The last upgrade, and correct me if I am wrong, to the Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 202 on head restraints was

made in late 2004. This is what my question is, my point. What

sort of research has NHTSA been involved with since then, and are

there plans to update whiplash prevention regulations in the near

future? This is a very critical issue with regard to many injuries

that are happening throughout the United States.

Ms. GLASSMAN. Yes, sir, it is, thank you for the question. We

issued a final rule upgrading standard 202 in about 2004. We have

received many petitions for reconsideration on various aspects of

the rule, so we continue to do research and to look at those petitions. A lot has to do with the level of what we call backset, which

is how close your head is to the actual head restraint. That is a

core feature of reducing whiplash and rear impact injuries, is making sure there is less movement of the torso and the head.

There’s also a considerable amount of research into new technologies that will help reduce the incidence of crashes occurring in

the first place. We are seeing a big shift from crash worthiness, or

protecting people when the crash occurs, into actual crash avoid-
26

ance, making sure that crashes do not occur. We see a lot of technology starting to come into vehicles today and new technologies on

the horizon which will help reduce the incidence of those crashes

actually occurring. We believe that that will help reduce those injuries quite a bit.

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, when you see the number of significant injuries that we are talking about, this could have an appreciable effect on insurance rates all throughout this Country. If

we can do this, and if this provides for a large hulk of those injuries, I think that is one way, in a huge puzzle. But it is one way

to begin to bring those huge insurance rates down to some degree.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Cummings, do you have questions?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Bushue, SAFETEA:LU modified the definition of a transit

capital project to include inner-city bus terminals that are a part

of intermodal projects. These terminals are now eligible for FTA

funding to the same extent as any other transit capital project.

This new eligibility is particularly important in cities like mine,

Baltimore, which are planning new inner-city bus-intermodal

projects.

When do you expect that FTA will issue final guidance implementing the provisions, and can you describe the process that the

FTA has developed to help transit agencies implement the bus and

bus facilities projects identified in the SAFETEA:LU bill?

Ms. BUSHUE. Yes, Congressman Cummings, I just had to think

about that for a second. It is a public-private partnership that we

are very excited about, that inner-city buses can use these terminals along with city buses, they can join in together. And we have

sought comments which ended April 27th, and we are collecting

those comments, and we hope to have guidance published, joint

guidance published in the Federal Register some time this summer.

Mr. CUMMINGS. OK. I know that PHMSA is not here, but I would

like to mention to you all my concern about implementation of Section 7131 of SAFETEA:LU, which requires the Administrator of the

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to enter

into a contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct

nine specific research studies on the transportation of hazardous

materials. I understand that the slow release of funds from the

Federal Highway Trust Fund has delayed initiation of these studies.

Section 7131 also required that the Secretary of the Department

of Transportation submit a report not later than six months after

the enactment of SAFETEA:LU, on the need to establish a cooperative research program on hazardous materials transportation. I understand that the Department of Transportation is waiting to clear

the report before its final release.

I am just concerned that this takes place timely and soon. I hope

that you will take that back to the PHMSA people.

Mr. CAPKA. Mr. Cummings, I sure will. I appreciate your comment.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And it was my amendment, that is why I am so

concerned about it. I already told my constituents I did this great

thing, and I want to be able to say it’s happening.
27

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, we will follow up with you and give you the status of where that particular action sits today.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just going back, I see I still have a moment, Ms.

Bushue, thank you very much. Ms. Bushue, let me go back into the

second part of my question about this whole situation with the

projects, intermodal projects. Can you describe the process that the

FTA is going through?

Ms. BUSHUE. For this particular one?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes.

Ms. BUSHUE. Yes, absolutely. We published guidance January

31st. After those guidance were published, we received some comments, a lot of comments. So we published an addendum to those

guidance, I believe they were published in March. And they closed

for comments on April 27th, 2006. But we do definitely, we will

have final guidance for the joint development partnership by this

summer, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. It is another concern of ours. We were able to get

an earmark for a major project, smack dab in the middle of my district. And we would just like to know that they are going to be able

to have the kind of guidance they need to be able to do it.

Ms. BUSHUE. Absolutely. My trusty staff just gave me a note and

they said we are working very closely with your office to develop

some specific projects.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thought he was going to say we just approved

it.

[Laughter.]

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

I have one or two more questions, but before asking them, let me

see if anyone else—Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Briefly, Mr. Chairman. We have kept the panel a

long time. Just back to Small Starts, I guess I have two concerns,

further concerns. One is, I want to be certain that we are building,

and I have not seen the proposed rules, into these rules, prohibitions on fragmentation, that is, people have existing large projects,

break them up and say, oh, well, we have a new project here. So

that is one, I would like you to address that.

And the second one is, although you seem quite enthusiastic

about the construct you are coming up with to implement our legal,

our legislative mandate, I note that the Administration only recommended $100 versus $200 million this year. And the appropriators, my understanding, have eliminated the $100 million and put

it over into other projects where it will hardly be noticed. So I

guess I would like a comment on both those things.

Ms. BUSHUE. Sure. I share your concern with your first point. We

will be looking at the proposals very closely to ensure, Congressman DeFazio, that that does not happen. I always share with the

FTA staff, I always get a kick, with all due respect to Congressman

Pascrell, with the MTA says something like, I can’t wait for that

Small Starts project to get up and running. Because one of its benefits was to kind of level the playing field for all cities and towns

to have a fair shake, if you will, on getting transit funding as such.

As to your second point, the reason that the Administration did propose that, or we proposed that $100 million for the Small Starts
28

program in fiscal year 2007 was due to the fact that the final rules

would not be completed until probably August 2007. And we

thought that $100 million was the appropriate investment and

down payment for the program.

Mr. DEFAZIO. But you did say earlier that you will be taking applications in the interim. I mean, how is it you recommend less

than we sort of assessed. I think there is tremendous pent-up demand for these things, and I think your legitimate applications will

far exceed the $100 million, let alone the $200 million, if implemented in the way we envision for other innovative street car, bus

rapid transit, other sorts of things, that could make a major difference in small and mid-size cities.

I am concerned that you sort of pre-calculated or guessed that,

not having yet seen any applications and I am not sure what you

are going to do, or how we are going to deal with the Appropriations Committee, since I guess they interpreted a lack of enthusiasm there because of the cut as opposed to your idea that perhaps

it was just sort of a phasing and implementation issue. So hopefully the Administration will express some concerns about this

move, since you are enthusiastic about it, to the Appropriations

Committee.

And then Mr. Chairman, the staff asked me for whatever reason

to ask unanimous consent that all members have X amount of time

to submit questions for the record which won’t be answered. So I

ask that, Mr. Chairman.

[Laughter.]

Mr. PETRI. We will make a good faith effort to answer, anyway.

Other questions? Mr. Blumenauer?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. If I could, Mr. Chairman. Just following up on

Mr. DeFazio’s point vis-a-vis the Subcommittee. I would hope that

our Committee would be pretty aggressive when the bill comes to

the floor, as we have done in the past, in terms of protecting the

integrity of the legislation we have worked on.

And the notion that they have substituted their judgment in

terms of—the material I have received is very hostile to both the

intent and the program. And I would hope that the Committee, as

we have done in the past, would be there pushing back. Because

we spent a lot of time putting this together. We are responding to

significant community support around the Country. And I just, I

am troubled that we would have them intervene again, undercutting what we are doing.

But with Mr. Oberstar not being here, I know he is excited that

we have half the States already designating the Safe Routes to

School permanent coordinator, we have 15 that are interim, 10 that

I am sure are right on the verge. But my recollection here is that

as part of the Safe Routes to School program, we were going to get

a report of the School Task Force Committee, Safe Routes to School

Committee, March 31st. And my understanding is, there has been

no record that the Committee has yet been appointed, let alone delivering the report. Am I missing something here, or did you work

out something with Mr. Oberstar on the side?

[Laughter.]

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, as you well know, Mr. Oberstar has been very

involved in the Safe Routes to School program. And yes, there was
29

a report that was due at the end of March. It was submitted toward the end of April. So there was a report. We have also brought

on——

Mr. BLUMENAUER. You actually formally put together the task

force?

Mr. CAPKA. We have formulated a task force. I will have to be

sure we have brought on the University of North Carolina to act

as the clearinghouse for that operation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. But there was a task force that was going to

put together this report. And I don’t think they have ever been formally—if we could find out what is going on.

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, sir, there is a slight problem with the task force,

because it falls under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. So we

have a little bit of homework to do before we can launch the task

force. You are right, that hasn’t been done yet, but we are in the

process of working that issue. We have submitted a report but the

task force——

Mr. BLUMENAUER. That the task force was going to do that

hasn’t yet been appointed? OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer.

Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

this hearing. I am sorry I was late arriving, I had a markup in another committee.

But I do want to ask a question of Ms. Bushue, the Acting Administrator of the FTA. First, we appreciate the fact that you are

working with us on transportation issues already, especially the

Dallas Area Rapid Transit.

Secondly, I want to say that the FTA bus program for intermodal

terminals, including the inner-city bus portion of these terminals,

is very, very important in my district. We have lots of poor people

and lots of miles to travel in Texas. If you haven’t ever been to

Texas, I will try to get you around to see it.

The setaside is similar to the inner-city bus intermodal program

proposed in the Administration’s SAFETEA proposal and in legislation that I sponsored. So I believe that development of intermodal

terminals and inclusion of inner-city buses in these terminals

should be a high priority at the FTA, as they would provide increased convenience, efficiency and seamlessness for passengers dependent on public transit. I just want to know when or how does

the FTA intend to implement this setaside program.

Ms. BUSHUE. Thank you, Congresswoman Johnson. I will be coming to Dallas on July 3rd for the opening ceremony of the extension

of your light rail line. So I will look forward to seeing you there.

Actually, your colleague, Congressman Cummings, had the same

question, and just to let you know that April 27th we closed the

Federal Register notice for comments from the guidelines that we

had outlined for joint use of the public and private, or the intermodal terminals for public and private use. We hope to have those

guidelines ready this summer, hopefully no later than August.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. Now, be assured that not all the poor

people are in Dallas, so don’t go there looking for them. They are

all over Texas, though. So if you come to Dallas and see how beautiful it is and what a wonderful place, that is all through. But we
30

have that other, too, that might not be as obvious, where you will

be.

Ms. BUSHUE. Absolutely. You do have a wonderful light rail system, and the Secretary, I think, will definitely be joining us. We

look forward to traveling there July 3rd. Thank you.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Well, let’s see. I have two—did you have another

question?

Just two quick questions, one for Ms. Bushue. And that has to

do with the New Freedom program to help disabled people with access. Do you know when the final guidance for the New Freedom

program will be published and what kinds of specific activities will

be eligible under the New Freedom program? We are getting inquiries from various constituencies and so on. I think we had some

legislative language we were watching like hawks to see how you

actually implemented.

[Laughter.]

Ms. BUSHUE. Yes, you are, Mr. Chairman. You have a very, very

agressive staff that has been watching us very closely. But they do

a great job. We enjoy our partnership with them.

First, I would like to say that we did issue the guidance, the

draft guidance, in March. It was amazing, the number of comments. And I have to tell you, I know—do I sound enthusiastic

about transit? I am. It is just, I just can’t tell you how exciting really the industry is and the communities are across the Country. I

like to say transit is hot. And it really is. There is just so much

enthusiasm out there about it, so much going on. And as for the

New Freedom program, we received over 190 comments, which is

unbelievable. So there is a lot of interest.

And we are going through those comments, and we hope to post

a final circular, final guidance in July. But it is our intent, and of

course, it is not final as we continue to go through the comments

that we receive, but as for the New Freedom, it is our intent that

it would support services, new services, and beyond the ADA. I

think the issue was or, but FTA’s intent is to focus on new services,

and services beyond the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. There is one member of this panel who

has been not acting, but confirmed for some time, Mr. Kaveeshwar.

But we can’t let you off without a question, sir, because we are interested in how you are doing in administering the competitive selection process for the UTC, or university transportation center

program.

Mr. KAVEESHWAR. Thank you for asking that question, Mr.

Chairman. Let me just give you a very quick run-down on what we

are doing with respect to the competitive process. The regional

UTCs, there were 10 of them, and that competition is just closed.

They opened it on March 15th and the application was received on

June 1st. We intend to finish our final selections by July 14th.

The next competition, that is the Tier 1 UTCs, and that competition just opened on June 1st. The applications are due on August

15th, and we intend to finish the selections by September 29th. So

we intend to award all of the Tier 1 as well as the regional UTCs

by the end of this fiscal year.
31

We also want to thank this Committee for strengthening this

program over the TEA–21. We are very excited about it, and we

are hoping to use the expanded program and connect its research

to the Department’s priorities.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111

Æ