U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–944 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 116–3 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF NICOLE R. 

NASON TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JANUARY 29, 2019 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

MIKE BRAUN, Indiana 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, 

Ranking Member 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

MARY FRANCES REPKO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JANUARY 29, 2019 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Mineta Hon. Norman, Former Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation . 5 

Nason, Nicole R., Nominated to be Administrator of the Federal Highway 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 11 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 12 

Senator Boozman ....................................................................................... 18 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 19 

Senator Duckworth ................................................................................... 22 

Senator Gillibrand ..................................................................................... 24 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 26 

Response to an additional question from Senator Rounds ............................ 27 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 27 

Senator Van Hollen ................................................................................... 28 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 29 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letters of support for the nomination of Nicole R. Nason ................................... 144-172 

(1) 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF NICOLE R. 

NASON TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2019 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. John Barrasso (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Capito, Braun, Rounds, Sullivan, 

Boozman, Ernst, Carper, Cardin, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Booker, 

and Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. I call this hearing to order. 

Today, we will consider the nomination of Nicole R. Nason to be 

the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration at the 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 

Ms. Nason is well-qualified for this important post. She brings 

impressive, meaningful experience in Federal transportation policy 

to this critically important position. I applaud President Trump’s 

nomination of such an accomplished and dedicated public servant. 

The Federal Highway Administration plays a central role in 

American mobility. The Administration is the lead Federal partner 

to State and local transportation programs that maintain and improve our Nation’s roads, highways, and bridges. 

America’s transportation infrastructure faces a lot of challenges. 

For far too long, the Federal Highway Administration has been 

without Senate-confirmed leadership. Moreover, the authorization 

of Federal highway programs will expire in September of next year. 

The Congressional Budget Office projects the Highway Trust 

Fund will become insolvent sometime in 2021. That is why we 

must work together in this committee to write and pass a bipartisan highway bill that upgrades America’s roads and bridges in a 

fiscally responsible manner, and do it in this Congress. 

We successfully worked together to pass comprehensive, bipartisan water infrastructure legislation. Now let us come together to 

fix our highways, roads, and bridges. This legislation must address 

the needs of rural America, and well as urban America. 

Rural roads are vital to bringing raw materials and products 

from the heartland to urban centers. Federal highways like I–80 

2 

run coast to coast, bringing goods and services across America. 

This includes the stretch of I–80 in my home State of Wyoming. 

We must maintain and improve these highways in rural States 

to keep these vital arteries of commerce open. In addition, I strongly support the Federal highway program’s current reliance on distributing funds by formula to the States. This is the best way to 

ensure that funding is transformed into projects quickly. 

The Federal Highway Administration will need a strong Administrator to work with Congress on the deployment, development, 

and implementation of highway infrastructure legislation. Nicole 

Nason is the right person for the job. 

During the Bush administration, Ms. Nason served as Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the 

Department of Transportation’s top road safety official. Prior to 

this role, she served as the Department of Transportation’s Federal 

Highway Administration Administrator. 

On behalf of MADD, I wholeheartedly endorse her for this position. 

The Associated General Contractors of America said that she is 

a ‘‘superb choice to fulfill FHWA’s leadership role in improving mobility on our Nation’s highways.’’ As such, the Associated General 

Contractors of America urges the Senate to quickly confirm her 

nomination. 

The Governors Highway Safety Association said: ‘‘Throughout 

her career, Ms. Nason has demonstrated a clear commitment to 

public service and, during her tenure as Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a dedication to advancing highway safety.’’ 

Confirming her to be Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration will be an important step in supporting our Nation’s 

highways, roads, and bridges. I urge my colleagues to work with 

me to get this done. 

I would now like to turn to the Ranking Member for his statement. Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is my intent to place a hold on the nomination of Ms. Nason. 

Not really. 

Who are those old people sitting next to you? Are those your 

kids? Tell us your names. 

Senator CARPER. First on the right. 

Ms. Abby Nason. I am Abby. 

Senator CARPER. Hi, Abby. 

Ms. Alex Nason. I am Alex. 

Mr. Brady Nason. I am Brady. 

Senator CARPER. Who is the big guy? 

Mr. David Nason. I am David. 

Senator CARPER. I want to thank you guys for your willingness 

to share this woman with the rest of us. The battle ahead for her 

confirmation will be hard fought. I have a hunch she will kind of 

squeak through. We will see. It depends on how she does today. 

Ms. Nason, we want to thank you. 

3 

It is great to see Norman. Many of us were pleased to previously 

serve with Norm in the House of Representatives years ago and as 

Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Transportation and God 

knows what else. He is warmly loved in Delaware and on the Delmarva by the horseshoe crab population of our region. There was 

a sanctuary created and he helped it grow and did that to save the 

horseshoe crabs which have been around hundreds of millions of 

years it turns out. 

Ms. Nason, thank you for appearing before our committee this 

morning. We welcome you and your family here today. We welcome 

your nomination to lead the Federal Highway Administration. 

As my colleagues will recall, you are not the first person nominated by this Administration for this job. A fellow from Iowa DOT, 

the Director of Transportation, Director Paul Trambino, withdrew 

his name as a nominee because of the illness of his father. He 

wanted to spend the last weeks and months with his dad. He 

passed on this job in order to be able to do that. His family’s misfortune opened this opportunity for you. 

It is interesting that when I was talking with you yesterday, you 

spoke about your own father and the impact his life, his misfortune 

with a terrible motorcycle accident, which sort of helped guide you 

in the end to safety advancements and now brings you before us 

today. 

It has now been more than 2 years since there has been an Administrator, the longest gap in leadership for the agency in more 

than 100 years, which was long before our Nation’s InterState 

Highway System even came into existence, back when the Federal 

Highway Administration was known as the Bureau of Public 

Roads. 

I have long said that leadership is the key to the success of any 

organization. We have heard many times over the last 2 years that 

the Trump Administration is eager to enact major infrastructure 

legislation and make significant investments in rebuilding our 

Country’s roads, highways, bridges and transit systems. 

With that in mind, in my view, it is counterintuitive to have left 

vacant for such a long period of time such an important leadership 

role in the Federal Highway Administration, an agency with a critical infrastructure mission. 

I hope that the President’s nomination of you, Ms. Nason, to be 

Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration is both evidence that the Trump Administration is aware of these organizational needs, and also a signal that the Administration is ready to 

work with Congress on reauthorizing our Nation’s transportation 

programs. 

The Federal Highway Administration is the lead Federal agency 

that oversees more than 220,000 miles of our national highway system and some 145,000 bridges. Today, far too many of those roadways and bridges have been in use well beyond their original design and as we know, are in poor condition. 

Too many drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists put their lives at 

risk when they use our roadways. In 2017, 2 years ago, there were 

more than 37,000 fatalities on our Nation’s roadways. For context, 

that is approximately the same number as the number of lives lost 

annually in our Country to gun violence. 

4 

Too many Americans also lack access to reliable transit or safe 

places to walk or bike, or to charging stations for an electric vehicles or fueling stations for hydrogen. That means the many people 

in our Country who would like to reduce their carbon footprint may 

not have many real options to do so. 

Next year, the FAST Act, which provided 5 years of funding and 

policy certainty for our transportation sector, is set to expire. Congress must work now on reauthorizing our Federal surface transportation programs so that we can provide continued certainty for 

States, tribal communities and cities, while also addressing the opportunities and challenges facing our transportation sector today 

and in the years to come. 

We have a rapidly evolving transportation industry in which new 

tools, data and technology are disrupting traditional practices of 

planning, building, operating and using road infrastructure. 

As we know, our climate is changing. Our vehicles and travel 

patterns accelerate and exacerbate that change, while at the same 

time, increasingly extreme weather events and sea level rise wear 

down our transportation networks. 

In addition to these major policy concerns, we face another big 

problem. Our Highway Trust Fund is going broke. Last year, we 

spent almost $13 billion more from the Highway Trust Fund than 

we collected in revenues. 

I will say that again. Last year, we spent almost $13 billion more 

from the Highway Trust Fund than we collected in revenues. Next 

year, that deficit will be even greater. To pay for the FAST Act for surface transportation, we took $70 

billion from the General Fund and other programs at a time when 

our Federal budget deficit last year reached $750 billion. I believe 

we are on target to reach a Federal deficit for this year of $850 billion and may be next year as much as $1 trillion. 

For the next 5-year transportation bill, we will need to find an additional $85 billion just to keep our programs at the current 

funding level. Despite spending more than we collect, we still are 

not even spending enough. The backlog of money needed to rehabilitate and improve highways and bridges has grown to $800 billion. Think about that, an $800 billion backlog. 

While we are thinking about that, let me conclude by saying that 

I hope Ms. Nason will prove to be a true partner to those of us here 

in Congress, one who will work with us from day one to address 

these and other challenges I just mentioned and other challenges 

in the months and years ahead. 

These challenges are great, but so are the opportunities. I am 

hopeful that Ms. Nason will prove to be the leader who is needed 

right now to find opportunity in adversity so that we can seize the 

day. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

We now have a special privilege in this committee to hear from 

one of the greats in American politics and history. Norm Mineta is 

here, the former Secretary of Transportation, with 20 years in the 

House, Chairman of the Transportation Committee in the House, 

then Secretary of Commerce for Bill Clinton, and Secretary of 

Transportation for G.W. Bush. 

5 

However, if you Google him, you get Norman Mineta and it says 

‘‘and Al Simpson.’’ There is no way to avoid this linkage that began 

over seven decades ago as Boy Scouts in Cody, Wyoming written 

about recently in the Washington Post and CBS News did a wonderful story about you, your legacy and the friendship and our kinship with Wyoming. 

We are so privileged to have you joining us today. 

With this, I would like to ask you, Mr. Secretary, to please proceed. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Could I also just voice the fact that I am so 

pleased to see you today and thank you for your service? 

You were so helpful to me when I was in the House when you 

were Secretary of Transportation, even before that. You gave me 

great advice. I think you truly are a model for what this place 

should be all about, working with both sides, trying to get results. 

The Secretary and one of my mentors, General Paul Hammerschmidt, were great friends. Again, thank you for your service. 

Thank you for helping so many of us in so many different ways. 

We appreciate you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Secretary. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN MINETA, FORMER 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the honor of appearing before you this morning and permitting me to address you. 

It is a pleasure to see so many Senators and former colleagues 

with whom I have had the pleasure to work over the years. 

Thank you for this honor and privilege to speak on behalf of Nicole R. Nason, the nominee to be Federal Highway Administrator. 

I have known Nicole since 2003 when she came to the Department of Transportation to serve as our Assistant Secretary of Government Affairs. As Secretary of Transportation, I met with Nicole 

nearly every day to discuss legislative proposals and strategies. 

However, her counsel went far beyond legislative issues. She was 

a key member of my executive team and was one of the department’s liaison’s with the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. 

After 3 years as the Assistant Secretary, I recommended to President George W. Bush that she be nominated as DOT’s National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administrator. She was unanimously confirmed by the Senate and served until 2008 as NHTSA Administrator. 

She successfully implemented numerous safety mandates and reporting requirements by SAFETEA-LU. During Nicole’s tenure as 

NHTSA’s Administrator, significant rulemakings were completed, 

including electronic stability control, side impact priorities protection and improvement in roof restraint, all because of her leadership skills. 

She also instituted a series of public meetings addressing topics 

such as the New Car Assessment Program, school bus safety, child 

safety seats, and use of ignition interlock devices. Many of these 

6 

proposals originated from these meetings and were later enacted by 

the agency. 

I also turned to Nicole to represent the department and me internationally. She spoke at the United Nations in Geneva on ‘‘International Harmonization and Safety Regulations.’’ She conducted an 

important bilateral with the Chinese government to prevent the 

sale of fraudulently made automobile tires. 

Nicole is an accomplished government executive, an experienced 

transportation leader and an individual with a high degree of personal integrity and character. Frankly, though, Mr. Chairman and 

members of the committee, there are several people that Nicole 

could have had appear before you to attest to her record and the 

proven attributes of her character. 

I responded very quickly to Nicole to appear on her behalf because I believe Nicole’s nomination is an important opportunity for 

this Senate and this Nation. Because of the convergence of certain 

factors, Nicole’s nomination transcends the usual confirmation of 

one more subcabinet executive. 

As this committee so well knows, I served in Congress for over 

20 years. As recited by the Chairman, I was the Secretary of Commerce for a Democratic President and the Secretary of Transportation for a Republican President. 

In all three of these positions, the key to any success that I had 

was persistent advocacy in seeking bipartisan collaboration whenever and wherever I could find it. This committee has done remarkable work with those tools and succeeded where others could not. 

Last year, your outstanding bipartisan work regarding our Nation’s 

water infrastructure was a true public policy achievement benefiting every American. 

As you know, our Nation’s transportation infrastructure faces 

similar challenges at a time when bipartisanship can be a scarce 

commodity. I believe this committee has the opportunity once again 

to revive this essential practice of governance. 

As many experts and pundits have indicated, infrastructure legislation is one of the best opportunities where this can occur. Having Nicole R. Nason as Federal Highway Administrator will assist 

the committee and this Congress in achieving this national need. 

She will strive to find common ground on a bipartisan basis on 

which to achieve needed solutions. 

She will be relentless in seeking opportunities and in the critical 

work the Federal Highway Administration will perform in working 

with you. She is the right person at the right time for this position. 

I know she will not let you down. 

Mr. Chairman, because of that, I am grateful to Nicole for allowing me to appear before you and this committee to speak in support 

of her candidacy as Federal Highway Administrator. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be very pleased to answer 

any questions the Senators may have with respect to her nomination. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so very much, Mr. Secretary. As 

you said, others could have appeared here to introduce her but certainly in the opinion of the Chair and the entire committee, none 

more distinguished and none more welcome than you. We are deVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:11 Apr 24, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\35944.TXT VERNE
7 

lighted to have you. You are welcome to stay for the rest of the 

hearing. 

Neither the Chair nor the committee has any questions for you 

but wish to wish you very well and you are always welcome to join 

us in this committee. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Secretary, before you leave, I leaned over 

while you were speaking and said to the Chairman, this Administration might contract you to come and speak. It might have more 

success than anything else I can think of. 

It is great to see you, my friend. God bless you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Now we would like to welcome to the committee our nominee, Nicole Nason, the nominee to be the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. We are delighted to 

have you and congratulations on your nomination. 

I want to remind you that your full written testimony will be 

made a part of the record. We all look forward to hearing your testimony today. 

I know you have members of the family here if you would like 

to introduce them and additional introductions. When you are finished, please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF NICOLE R. NASON, NOMINATED TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. NASON. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, members of 

the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today to be considered for the position of Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, at the Department of Transportation. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with you to enable and 

empower the strengthening of a world-class highway system. 

I would like to thank President Trump and Secretary Chao for 

their confidence in my ability to serve in this critical role. I would 

also like to express my gratitude to Secretary Norman Mineta, not 

just for his appearance and his remarks today, but for his years of 

extraordinary service to our Country. His life story is incredible 

and he remains one of my personal heroes. 

I am pleased to have with me today my husband, David. You 

briefly met my son, Brady, aged 10; my daughter, Abby, aged 14; 

and my daughter, Alex, aged 17. I am grateful for their love and 

support always. Although I recognize that they get to miss school 

today for this, I would like to think they would come even on a Saturday. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, as you are aware, I am 

currently serving as the Assistant Secretary for Administration at 

the State Department. My 1,900-plus employees and contractors at 

the A Bureau manage everything from logistics and shipping to 

building repairs to all departmental procurement. 

I love my position but my heart is in transportation policy. That 

is why I was so excited and privileged when President Trump and 

Secretary Chao invited me to return to my roots at the Department 

of Transportation as the Federal Highway Administrator. 

If confirmed, my first priority will be Secretary Chao’s first priority, the safety of our transportation system. This focus unites the 

8 

department across the modes and will remain top of mind for me 

always. 

Having served as Administrator of the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration and having spent several years on the National Board of Directors of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, I 

know the grim statistics all too well. 

In 2017, as the Senator noted, there were 37,133 people killed in 

motor vehicle crashes. This is an appalling number and I believe 

the only acceptable number is zero. 

If confirmed, I hope to focus particularly on pedestrian safety. I 

would like to work with State and local leaders and members of 

this body to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety by focusing on 

improved road design and targeting our most dangerous intersections. 

Second, if confirmed, I intend to work closely with my fellow administrators and colleagues at the DOT. I believe if we are to effectively respond to our serious transportation challenges, we need to 

work seamlessly. 

I intend to collaborate with my Federal colleagues in Washington, DC. and all of our State, local and tribal government partners to eliminate barriers to project delivery and timely success. 

For example, many new technologies cut across several modes 

and I will work with all of our partners on the development and 

safe integration of these technologies. 

Third, if I am confirmed, I intend to visit our teams in the field. 

I would like to go out and meet with State, local and tribal partners to personally see their concerns and hear their ideas. 

I learned while serving as NHTSA Administrator that it is important to get out of D.C. and understand the challenges firsthand. 

Finally, I am aware of the role FHWA will play in the reauthorization of surface transportation legislation as the Fixing America 

Surface Transportation Act will expire at the end of Fiscal Year 

2020. 

I was proud part to play a part in helping shape SAFETEA-LU 

when I previously served at the department. I look forward to the 

prospect of working together on any legislative efforts. As this committee knows well, there is not a one size fits all solution. 

Mr. Chairman, as the daughter of a New York County motorcycle 

highway patrol officer, I grew up hearing about highway and vehicle safety. I clearly remember Dad’s gruesome motorcycle crash 

while on the job and his extended recovery at home. His helmet 

with the crack in the back where his head smacked the pavement 

and knocked him unconscious was his gift to me when I was confirmed as NHTSA Administrator. 

If confirmed as FHWA Administrator, I will proudly display the 

helmet in that office as well. The helmet was his reminder that 

there is a person and a family behind all the statistics, a reminder 

that we can and should always strive to do more. 

Again, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Carper, thank you 

for allowing me to appear before you today. If confirmed, I commit 

to you that I will perform the role of FHWA Administrator with accountability to all stakeholders, especially the American public. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nason follows:] 

9 


35944.001

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 

NICOLE R. NASON, 

NOMINEE TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

January 29, 2019 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today to be considered for the position of Administrator of the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) at the Department of Transportation (Department). l 

am grateful to President Trump and Secretary Chao for the opportunity to serve in this position. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with you to enable and empower the strengthening of a 

world-class highway system. 

The programs FHW A delivers are key contributors to the economic and social well-being of all 

Americans. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that FHWA remains focused on the Secretary's 

priorities of safety, infrastructure investment, and innovation and fulfills its mission with 

accountability. 

Of all the Department's priorities, none is higher than safety. If confirmed as FHWA 

Administrator, safety will be my number one priority as well. Previously, as Administrator of 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), l saw firsthand the sobering 

impacts of highway fatalities, and !look forward to the opportunity to bring the knowledge I 

gained in that position to a new role focused on the safety of the American people on our 

highways. In 2017, 37,133 people lost their lives in highway crashes in our Nation. That 

equates to an astounding average of I 02 people dying each day in motor vehicle crashes. This is 

not acceptable. The only acceptable number is zero. If confirmed, I will tirelessly support 

FHWA's leadership role in providing safety-related assistance and resources to our stakeholders 

as we work towards a common goal of zero deaths on our Nation's roads. 

Rural communities are disproportionately affected by road safety issues. Only 19 percent of the 

U.S. population lives in rural areas; however, in 20 I 7, there were 17,216 fatalities on rural roads, 

representing 47 percent of total fatalities that year. FHWA takes a coordinated, national 

approach with its partners and stakeholders to address local and rural crashes, including through 

its local and rural road safety program, which encompasses training, technical assistance, 

guidance, tools, reports and programs on these issues. My priority is safety on all roads, but we 

must recognize and address some of the unique safety challenges faced by rural communities. 

One of the key elements of ensuring safety is highway infrastructure investment. The United 

States faces an ongoing challenge of preserving and improving over four million miles of public 

roads and over 600,000 bridges and tunnels. Ensuring sufficient investment in these 
10 


35944.002

infrastructure assets is important not only because it enhances safety, but because it further 

benefits all Americans by increasing mobility and stimulating our Nation's productivity and 

economic growth. The Highway Trust Fund is projected to have enough cash to cover highway 

expenditures through the end of fiscal year 2020, but we must find a sustainable, long-term 

funding solution. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to find a solution. 

In addition, I recognize the important role that Fl-IWA will play in reauthorization of surface 

transportation authorization legislation, as the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) 

Act will expire at the end of fiscal year 2020. I was proud to play a part in helping shape 

SAFETEA-LU when I previously served at the Department and I look forward to the prospect of 

working together on any infrastructure or reauthorization efforts. I recognize that there are 

challenges to be addressed, but I am ready to work with the Secretary and the Congress to 

address these important issues as there is not a one-size fits all solution. 

Innovative technologies and practices offer another means to further enhance safety and the 

performance of our highways. This is an exciting time of rapidly evolving innovation, and I am 

eager to support FHWA's role in maximizing innovation to improve transportation. Secretary 

Chao has adopted a technology neutral approach, with a goal of encouraging the widest possible 

development of safe new transportation technologies. Automated technology has the potential to 

revolutionize the way we travel, transport goods, and connect with one another and could reduce 

highway fatalities and injuries by addressing human error. I look forward to continuing the good 

work that the Department has already undertaken in this area. 

If confirmed, I intend to perform my role with accountability to FHWA's stakeholders, including 

the American public. The Federal-aid Highway Program is a federally funded, State 

administered program. If confirmed, I will work collaboratively with our stakeholder partners to 

accelerate project delivery, increase efficiency, and eliminate any unnecessary or overly 

burdensome requirements in an open and transparent manner. 

Thank you for your consideration. I would be happy to answer any questions. 
11 


35944.003

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "Hearing on the Nomination of Nicole Nason to be Administrator of the 

Federal Highway Administration" 

January 29, 2019 

Questions for the Record for Ms. Nicole R. Nason 

Chairman Barrasso: 

!. The statistics for 2017 show fewer traffic fatalities in the United States than for 2016, and 

the preliminary results for the first six months of 2018 show further reduction in 

fatalities. This is a step forward, but we all want to do much better. You worked to reduce 

highway fatalities when you were at the National Highway Transportation Safety 

Administration. What steps would you take to improve road safety if confirmed as the 

Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration? 

Every fatality on our nation's highways is a tragedy. As I stated at the hearing, I echo 

Secretary Chao's commitment that safety is the Department of Transportation's number 

one priority. If I am confirmed, I will work collaboratively within the Department, as 

well as other agencies and partners to improve the safety of our transportation system. 

As I stated, zero fatalities is the only acceptable goal for the Department, and if 

confirmed I will work to continue the Department 'sfocus on safety. I also will make it a 

priority to understand the safety challenges of individual States and localities, knowing 

that the issues and the solutions are different across the nation. 

2. From your perspective, what are the most important challenges facing the Federal 

Highway Administration over the next two years? If confirmed, what will be your top 

priorities for the next multi-year reauthorization of the federal highway program? 

The programs FHWA delivers are key contributors to the economic and social well-being 

of all Americans. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that FHWA remains focused on the 

Secretary's priorities a,( safety, infrastructure investment, and innovation andji1((ills its 

mission with accountability. 

Of all the Department's priorities, none is higher than safety. If confirmed, safety will be 

my number one priority as well. In 2017, 37,133 people lost their lives on American 

roadways. The only acceptable number is zero, and I look forward to working with 

Congress toward a common goal of zero deaths on our Nation's roads. 

The United States faces an ongoing challenge o.f preserving and improving over four 

million miles o.f public roads and over 600,000 bridges and tunnels. Ensuring sufficient 

investment in these infrastructure assets is important not only because it enhances safety, 

but because it further benefits all Americans by increasing mobility and stimulating our 

Nation's productivity and economic growth. The Highway Trust Fund is projected to 

have enough cash to cover highway expenditures through the end of fiscal year 2020, but 

it is important to find a sustainable, long-term solution. In addition to improving and 
12 


35944.004

repairing infrastructure, it is critical to repair the permitting process and create 

efficiencies in project delivery while maintaining environmental protections. If 

confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress on these matters. 

Finally, FHWA plays a key leadership role in supporting and guiding highway research 

development and technology. The development and deployment of innovation will 

continue to be critical in the years to come. Ifconfirmed, I look forward to continuing to 

work with Congress in these areas. 

3. I think it is fair to say that every Senator on this committee believes that federal highway 

dollars invested in his or her state not only benefits that state's residents, but serves the 

national interest. l believe that federal highway dollars invested in rural states like my 

home state of Wyoming ensure that commerce can move across the country. Do you 

agree that federal highway dollars invested in rural states serves the national interest? 

I understand the importance of our highway system to rural States and communities 

throughout the country. Households and businesses depend on the efficient and reliable 

delivery of freight in both rural and urban areas. In addition. rural States have unique 

needs and challenges that need to be understood and addressed. If confirmed. I will 

support the rebuilding and modernization of roads and bridges in rural America. 

4. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has developed 

an inventory of opportunities to reduce regulatory burdens, including ideas to streamline 

non-environmental requirements. If confirmed, will you be looking for reasonable 

opportunities to reduce requirements and streamline programs, and do you already have 

ideas as to opportunities to provide relief from federal requirements and give state DOTs 

more flexibility? 

Yes, if confirmed. I will strive to build on FHWA 's efforts to reduce regulatory burdens 

and create efficiencies in project delivery. Stakeholders may have additional ideas, and I 

will ensure that F!IWA carefully considers their ideas. 

Ranking Member Carper: 

5. At your hearing, I'd asked about opportunities to respond to climate change, both in 

terms of mitigating emissions from the transportation sector and in terms of increasing 

resilience of infrastructure. I was pleased with your affirmation of the importance of 

resilience, but would like to follow up on the question of mitigation. If confirmed as 

Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), you will have an 

opportunity to influence roadway designs and availability of electric charging and 

hydrogen fueling infrastructure, as well as to ensure that safe space is provided on public 

roadways to be able to walk or bike to transit stations or to jobs and other essential 

destinations. How will you use your leadership to reduce transportation emissions, 

through vehicles, travel patterns, and mode choices? 
13 


35944.005

If confirmed, I would assess all data and review opportunities to reduce transportation 

emissions. In addition. I understand FHWA is implementing provisions of the Fixing 

America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act regarding the potential designation of 

national electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, propane, and natural gas fueling 

corridors. I would be interested in those efforts and in FHWA 's work with other Federal, 

State, and local officials, as well as private industry, so commercial and passenger 

vehicles of all types can reliably travel between cities, regions, and across the entire 

Nation. 

6. As was noted at your confinnation hearing, construction delays can result in additional 

cost. Improving government efficiency and improving our return on Federal investments 

has been a long-term goal of mine, and one on which I would be eager to partner. Our 

committee has focused on finding opportunities to reduce delay in the environmental 

review process, and given the large number of new authorities already created in the last 

two bills, I believe we should now turn to other areas of state and federal practices to 

improve efficiency and outcomes. 

a. Do you agree that there are sources of delay outside of the Federal environmental 

regulationsry 

Ifconji'rmed, I commit to working with you and the Congress to address 

unnecessary sources of construction delay. 

b. Do you agree that better use of data to prioritize investment decisions could 

improve the return on investments for safety, mobility, and other outcomes? 

Yes. As stated in my testimony, I am afirm believer in good data. The 

implementation of a performance-based program under MAP-21 and the FAST 

Act has provided decision-makers with a better understanding of the various 

metrics that can contribute to improved outcomes. As States and Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations implement the new pelformance requirements, it will 

result in a more data-driven approach to investment decisions for the 

transportation system. 

c. Do you agree that new technology and innovative materials and practices should 

also be an important focus area in our efforts to improve efficiency? 

Yes, new technolob,rv and innovative materials and practices are important focus 

areas to improve the efficiency of our transportation network. The FHWA has 

robust programs that actively advance innovative technologies and practices and 

if conji'rmed, !look forward to continuing to work with our partners to advance 

innovations that meet the needs of a 21" century tramportation system. 

d. Will you commit to working with our committee to identify such opportunities to 

improve the benefits that result from each dollar of transportation investment? 
14 


35944.006

Yes. If confirmed, I will work with you to identifY opportunities to stretch the use 

and benefit of every taxpayer dollar invested in highway infrastructure. 

7. In the U.S. Department of Transportation· s most recently issued framework for 

multi modal automation. titled "Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated 

Vehicles 3.0", the guidance is explicit that infrastructural considerations are needed for 

the safe deployment of autonomous vehicles (AV), including the quality and uniformity 

of road markings, signage, and other traffic control devices to support safe and efficient 

driving. 

a. Yes or no, do you agree that transportation infrastructure needs and upgrades 

must be considered to enable the safe, widespread deployment of AVs? 

Yes. that seems likely, though lime will tell. lnfi'astructure need~ and upgrades 

need to he considered. with the input of all stakeholders. 

b. Yes or no, do you agree that the Federal Highway Administration is responsible 

for ensuring that our Nation's roads can safely accommodate AVs? 

FHWA has an important role in advancing innovations, including with regard to 

whether the nation's roads can support the safe and effective integration of" 

automated vehicles into the transportation system. 

8. During your hearing, you were asked whether you agreed that the existing formula 

programs enable states to address their priorities more effectively and more expeditiously 

than creating new programs that are less well understood and can take time to establish. I 

think it's clear that the formula programs work extremely well for the purpose of 

providing certainty and getting defined funding levels to states quickly. However, 

wouldn't you agree that the allocated and discretionary grant programs also serve an 

important purpose, including incentivizing innovative practices, targeted funding for 

disadvantaged and minority entities, and programs that allow local and county 

governments to directly access federal funds 0 

While each such program should be assessed on its own merits, the allocated and direct 

prof{rams have been a mechanism to advance goals in addressing inf"rastructure needs. 

9. I'd like to ask a few questions regarding the interaction of FHWA with tribal 

governments. 

a. As you know, the federal government has a unique relationship with Indian Tribes 

across the country. Would you characterize your understanding of that 

relationship? 

I understand the importance ofFHWA working with Tribes as partners. If" 

confirmed, I will ensure that FHWA continues to .foster those partnerships. 
15 


35944.007

b. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number one 

cause of death for American Indians and Alaska Natives ages l-44 is 

unintentional injury, including traffic-related fatalities. lf confirmed as 

Administrator, will you commit to taking a harder look at what measures work in 

Indian Country to reduce serious injuries and death from motor vehicle crashes, 

especially among native youth'? 

Myfirst priority is always safety. Good data is essential for a better 

understanding of the type and location of needed improvements and programs to 

address transportation safety in tribal areas, including serious injuries and 

fatalities involving Native youth. If confirmed, I intend to work with FHWA 's 

Federal partners to assist tribal governments in improving crash data collection. 

sharing, and use. 

c. lf the Administration promotes infrastructure priorities this Congress, what arc 

some ofthe transportation infrastructure and highway safety needs you see in 

Indian country? 

Tribal roads are generally rural in nature, ojien unpaved and sometimes lack 

desirable safety features. Many tribally-owned bridges are also an area of 

improvement. Transportation challenges reduce access for Native Americans to 

jobs, schools, medical care, and commerce. Rural communities, including tribal 

communities, are disproportionately affected by road safety issues. If confirmed. 

I look forward to working to support Indian Country community development and 

capacity building through surface transportation investment, for selfdetermination and self~governance. 

I 0. Recent advances in vehicle safety technology are bringing the widespread deployment of 

autonomous vehicles closer to reality. With these advances, much of the attention has 

been on vehicle-to-vehicle communication, and not as much attention has been paid to 

needs and benefits of smart infrastructure and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication. 

a. Do you believe the development and deployment of smart infrastructure is 

keeping pace with the development of "smart" vehicles. 

If confirmed, I will actively support the advancement of connectivity as discussed 

in the U.S. DOT guidance document "Preparing for the Future of Transportation: 

Automated Vehicles 3.0." 

b. In your view, what should FHW A be doing now to ensure our nation's roadways 

are ready to take advantage of the safety benefits that could come from vehicle-toinfrastructure communication? Under your leadership, how will FHWA ensure 

that smart infrastructure technology and deployment keeps pace with advances in 

vehicle technology? 
16 


35944.008

It is important to advance the conversation with all stakeholders involved to 

be Iter understand the state of readiness that is required to support the safe and 

efficient integration of automated vehicles into our roadway environment. If 

confirmed, I will ensure that FHWA continues this dialogue while co/laboratively 

learningfrom demonstration and testing activities and pilot deployments of smart 

and connected vehicle roadway infrastructure. 

c. What do you sec as the critical next steps in the development of smart 

infrastructure? 

Consistent with the U.S. DOT guidance document "Preparing/or the Future of 

Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3. 0," if confirmed, I will work to preserve 

the ability of transportation safety applications to junction in the 5.9 GHz 

spectrum while remaining technologically nimble in accommodating 

telecommunications technology innovation. I would also promote the 

incorporation of infrastructure connectivity and smart in}Yastructure in efforts to 

demonstrate, tes/, and evaluate the integration ofautomated vehicles into 

roadway operations. 

d. Do you agree that technology should be used to monitor and report on failing 

highway infrastructure such as road surfaces, bridges, and roadside safety 

products? What do you see as the benefits of such monitoring and reporting? 

If confirmed, I will work to ensure FHWA continues to provide the best data and 

in.fi~rmation to States and other partners. The use of technology to monitor 

transportation infrastructure is an emerging area that could provide a more 

complete understanding ofperformance and condition. 

II. Infrastructure projects have the potential to bring tremendous benefits to a community 

and ideally should be designed and built in ways that do benefit all members of the 

surrounding community. However, there are instances in which communities have 

divided opinions on a proposed project and there may be strong opposition to it due to 

environmental or community impacts. In this case, the planning process and NEPA 

review is intended to enable all members of the public to come to agreement on the best 

path forward and identify ways to mitigate harm prior to construction. Sometimes these 

negotiations with community members can be time-consuming, but they can also 

significantly improve the outcomes for that community. Would you agree to consult with 

me and my staff prior to any significant administrative actions that you take as 

Administrator concerning environmental reviews to ensure that NEPA and related 

processes continues to save money and time, while cultivating better projects with public 

support? 

Public engagement is an integral part of the NEPA process. If confirmed. I will work to 

ensure FHWA.fulfills its responsibilities under existing laws, to ensure efficient project 

delivery while preserving environmental protections. 
17 


35944.009

12. For decades, both Republican and Democratic administrations alike have had written 

policies limiting White House contacts with agencies that have investigatory and 

enforcement responsibilities. These policies have recognized that even a simple phone 

call from the White House to an agency inquiring about or flagging a specific matter can 

upset the evenhanded application of the law. 

a. Do you agree that it is essential that in making decisions, the FHWA must be 

shielded from political influence and spared even the appearance of being subject 

to political influence or considerations? 

b. Will you commit to notifying this Committee within one week if any 

inappropriate communications from White House staff to FHWA staff, including 

you, occur? 

I will not tolerate wrongfid political retaliation. and I would not condone any attempts to 

intimidate FHWA stafffor any reason. If confirmed, I will ensure that FHWA staff are 

shielded from any unlawful communications, and !will commit to report any incidents of 

such communications to senior leadershtjJ at the Departmenl, and if appropriate, the 

Committee. 

13. Whistleblower laws protect the right of federal employees to make lawful disclosures to 

agency management officials, the Inspector General, and the Office of Special Counsel. 

They also have the right to make disclosures to Congress. Specifically, 5 U.S.C. § 7211 

states that the "right of employees, individually or collectively, to petition Congress or a 

Member of Congress or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a 

committee or Member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied." Further, 5 U.S.C. § 

2302(b)(8), makes it a violation of federal law to retaliate against whistleblower because 

of "(A) any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant which the employee or 

applicant reasonably believes evidences- (i) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or 

(ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial 

and specific danger to public health or safety, any disclosure to the Special Counsel, or to 

the Inspector General of an agency or another employee designated by the head of the 

agency to receive such disclosures, of information which the employee or applicant 

reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law, rule, or regulation ... " In addition, 

pursuant to 18 U .S.C. § 1505, it is against federal law to interfere with a Congressional 

inquiry. 

a. If you are confirmed, will you commit to protect the rights of all FHW A career 

employees to make lawful disclosures, including their right to speak with 

Congress? 

Yes. 

b. Will you commit to communicate employees' whistleblower rights via email to 

all FHWA employees within a week of being sworn in? 
18 


35944.010

If confirmed, I will ensure that all FHWA employees are made aware of their 

rights. 

14. Do you agree to provide complete, accurate and timely responses to requests for 

information submitted to you by any Member of the Environment and Public Works 

Committee? If not, why not? 

Yes. 

I 5. Will you commit to providing me with materials responsive to my oversight letters at the 

same time or earlier than they are provided to House Committee Chairs or Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) requestors? If not, please explain why not. 

If co11firmed, I will respond timely to your requests concerning FHWA matters. 

Senator Boozman: 

16. One of our nation's biggest infrastructure priorities in the I 16th Congress is addressing 

the Highway Trust Fund solvency issues. According to a new analysis by the 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the Highway Trust Fund's transit account will run 

out of money by 2021, with the highway account zeroing out by 2022, without some sort 

of legislative fix. Can you explain why a long-term, sustainable funding mechanism is 

necessary to address the highway trust funds shortfalls? 

During my experience at the State Department, our partners and stakeholders were clear 

on how critical it is to havefimding certainty when constructing embassies and 

consulates. The FHWA 's stakeholders need similar certainty when planning highway 

projects. 

17. If confirmed, outreach will be a large part of your job as Administrator of the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA). How do you anticipate your past experiences will 

help you in improving the way FHWA engages with stakeholders? 

If confirmed, I will perform the role of FHWA Administrator with accountability to all 

stakeholders, especially the American public. During my time as Administrator of 

NHTSA, I made it a priority to hear from stakeholders first-hand about the challenges 

they faced. It is very important to get outside of Washington and connect with the people 

on the ground. I intend to continue that practice, if confirmed. 

18. As you know, Congress has continued to support dedicated funding for roadway safety 

infrastructure through the Highway Safety Improvement Program. As a country, we've 

made critical investments to save lives on our nation's roadways. However, we have 

recently seen an increase in roadway fatalities. In your opinion, what can the Federal 

government be doing better to help address roadway safety? 
19 


35944.011

I share your concern in the number offatalities on our roadways. As Secretary Chao has 

emphasized, safety is the number one priority for the Department of Transportation. I 

look forward to the opportunity to bring the knowledge I gained as the Administrator of 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to FHWA to focus on the 

safety of the American people on our roadways. While at NHTSA, we worked hand in 

hand with our partners at FHWA and in the States across all four E 's of safety: 

Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services. I will support FHWA 's 

leadership role in providing assistance and resources to our stakeholders jointly working 

toward a goal of zero fatalities on our roadways. 

19. Aside from providing grants and funding, what can the federal government do to ensure 

that infrastructure is delivered in a timelier and more cost-effective manner? 

It is my understanding that FHWA uses several strategies to increase efficiencies and 

reduce time .frames though the environmental review process and project delivery, such as 

encouraging agency collaboration early in the process to identify issues and avoid delays 

later in the process. If confirmed, I would be interested in building on current efforts at 

FHWA and across the Government that accelerate the delivery of infrastructure and 

reduce unnecessary delays. 

20. A common complaint l hear from Arkansans is how inefficient the federal government is, 

in the delivery of infrastructure investment. Projects that should reasonably be completed 

in a few years typically last decades, delaying public benefits and exponentially 

increasing costs. How, if at all, can public-private-partnerships help accelerate 

infrastructure delivery and create better value for taxpayers? 

In some situations, P3s can bring creativity, efficiency, and capital to address complex 

transportation problems facing State and local governments. If revenues can be 

generated by the project itself. or if the construction challenges are particularly novel, 

the P 3 delivery method may be appropriate. If confirmed, I will work to ensure FHWA 

continues to lead in accelerating project delivery through innovative practices whether 

P3s or other methods. 

Senator Cardin: 

21. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act did not increase the gasoline 

tax or provide another sustainable source of revenues to be paid into the Highway Trust 

Fund. Unless new revenue sources are found, we face projections of a large gap between 

Highway Trust Fund tax receipts and spending plans when we begin debating the 

reauthorization of the FAST Act in 2020. Do you agree that legislation to reauthorize the 

federal surface transportation programs should include a bipartisan plan that ensures the 

long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund in order to prevent our roads and bridges 

from returning to a state of disrepair after this initial needed investment? 
20 


35944.012

I believe it is essential to find a sustainable, long-term solution for our nation's surface 

transportation infrastructure. As Secretary Chao has said, all options are on the table. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to find a solution. 

22. The transportation sector is now the largest source of climate pollution in the United 

States, surpassing the electricity sector for the first time. On-road transportation 

constitutes over one-quarter of the total greenhouse gas emissions in Maryland, a state 

that has acted by adopting more stringent vehicle emissions standards. 

a. As Administrator ofthe Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), will you build 

on bipartisan e!Torts by Congress to strengthen transportation infrastructure 

against climate change-driven impacts such as flooding? 

Yes. If confirmed, I would be happy to build on efforts to improve resiliency 

against flooding in tramporlation infi'astructure in collaboration with FHWA 's 

State and local partners. 

b. Will you likewise work with the States to address the climate change-driving 

impacts of the transportation sector, including vehicle emissions? 

Although this is more of an issue for EPA, if confirmed, I would be committed to 

working with FHWA partners, as well as with myfellow DOT modal 

Administrators on this issue. As I stated at the hearing, I believe that FHWA can 

be a resource for good research and data. 

23. Public health demands that we continue down a path of reducing climate pollution. Do 

you support state and local transportation agencies' efforts to plan for the future by 

tracking vehicles emissions and setting goals for reducing them? 

My understanding is that EPA regulates pollutants such as lead, ozone, NOx, and others, 

and I am supportive of measures that benefit public health. 

24. You were recognized for your work on the Urban Partnership Agreement Program for 

developing, coordinating, and implementing a major multi-modal departmental initiative 

to reverse the growing impacts of congestion in metropolitan areas. Roadway congestion 

costs the Capital Region more than an $7 billion annually, with Baltimore metro 

commuters losing $1,115 per commuter and Washington metro commuters each losing 

$1,845 each year, the highest costs in the nation. Do you feel that the Federal-Aid 

Highway Program is adapting with the changing demands, or do we need to look at 

different approaches to support the multimodal demands of business and commerce 

today? 

Transportation needs are diverse throughout the country. Manyfactors influence 

peoples' travel choices, including lime, congestion and cost. As a former Administrator 

at U.S. DOT, I understand the importance ofworking with other modes within the 
21 


35944.013

Department to find solutions to irifrastructure problems, including congestion. {f 

corifirmed, i will work with the Department to be Iter understand and address the 

demands on our Federal-aid highway ;,ystem. 

25. How would you describe the importance of bicycling and walking for state departments 

of transportation (DOTs)? 

State DOTs often work to achieve safe, accessible, and connected bicycle and pedestrian 

networks in both urban and rural areas. if i am confirmed, i would like to work with 

State and local leaders and other partners to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety, and i 

imagine that FHWA could be a source of valuable information and data. 

26. Please explain your position on the role for active transportation networks, especially as 

they connect people to transit, in improving safety and increase accessibility. Do you see 

a connection with federal highways in creating safe networks and in improving 

transportation options and access to transit? 

Yes, effective transportation systems provide options that allow people to choose the 

routes and modes that best suit their daily needs as they get from one place to another. if' 

i am confirmed, i would collaborate with myfellow modal Administrators to build on the 

national leadership that FHWA, in coordination with other U.S. DOT modes, has 

provided on research and innovation in planning, designing, and operating safe networks 

in partnership with the States and other stakeholders. 

27. Pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities have been on a steady increase since 2008. This is 

unacceptable. 

a. What in your view is the main cause(s) to this disturbing trend? 

if confirmed, my highest priority will be safety. and this includes pedestrian and 

bicyclist safety. Although it is difficult to cite a single cause to the increase in 

pedestrian and bicyclistfatalities, this trend is likely due to several factors. if' 

confi'rmed, I lookforward to working with FJ-JWA 's transportation partners to 

identifY assistance and resources that will help improve the safety of all pedestrians 

and bicyclists. 

b. What are some federally-supported solutions to reducing these fatalities? 

My understanding is that FHWA provides technical assistance andfunding support 

for pedestrian safety. During my time at NJ-JTSA. FHWA worked in coordination with 

NHTSA to assist States and cities with the highest number of'pedestrianfi<talities 

through a focused approach to safety. In addition, there were changes made in the 

FAST Act to the Highway Safety improvement Program to address pedestrian safety. 

These include pedestrian hybrid beacons and roadway improvements that provide 

separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles, including medians and 
22 


35944.014

pedestrian crossing islands. If confirmed, llookforward to continuing FHWA 's role 

ofproviding technical assistance to these States and cities, as well as researching and 

identifYing new ways of addressing this important safety issue. 

28. While much of the Federal Highway Administration remained open during the partial 

government shutdown, Maryland projects have been slowed due to shut-down functions 

of the U.S. Department of Transportation, such as environmental review. Maryland grant 

applications were languishing for weeks at the Secretary's desk unable to be awarded. 

a. As FHWA Administrator, will you commit to addressing the backlog before 

turning to new initiatives? 

I share the Secretary's goal of getting everything up to speed and expediting project 

delivery. If confirmed. I will work with the Office of the Secretary to provide any 

support that FHWA can offer in this regard. 

b. And will you advocate for the Department's work and the need to keep it open? 

The FHWA remains fully funded during lapses in appropriations. llookforward to 

supporting the Secretary to keep the Department and FHW4 as operational as 

possible. 

Senator Duckworth: 

29. Although the Federal Highway Administration was up and running under the partial 

government shutdown and the year's funding was made available to the states, according 

to press reports, state departments of transportation were delaying commitments to 

projects for fear that they might have to de-obligate some of those commitments should a 

partial-year continuing resolution be enacted. What steps do you think FHWA can take to 

provide more certainty to the state departments of transportation during future shutdowns 

should they occur? 

The FHWA has Division Offices in each State. These a./flees serve as close, front-line 

partners with State transportation agencies as they deliver the Federal-aid program. If 

confirmed. I would continue to direc/ FHWA 's Division Offices to work closely with their 

State counterparts in all current capacities, including to provide guidance to avoid 

situations that would require States to de-obligate funding after a lapse in 

appropriations. 

30. Both of the last two reauthorization acts, MAP-21 and the FAST Act, included extensive 

language regarding environmental streamlining, some of which have not been 

implemented fully. Do you think additional changes should be included in the upcoming 

FAST Act reauthorization? What specific changes would you suggest? 
23 


35944.015

My understanding is that FHWA has completed all but one of the required MAP-21 and 

FAST Act streamlining provisions. {fconfirmed. I will ensure that any outstanding 

provisions are implemented. I believe that it is important to continuously explore ways to 

do things better to ensure that projects are not unnecessarily delayed, and recognize that 

additional ideas have surfaced since the FAST Act was passed in 2015. Although I do 

not have any specific suggestions to offer at this time, if confirmed Ilookforward to 

working with you on these issues. 

31. The Trump Administration's infrastructure proposal was based on the assumption that 

$200 billion in federal funding would leverage an $800 billion commitment from state, 

local, and private sources. Critics have commented that this is the opposite of the typical 

20/80% state/federal share under the Federal-Aid Highway Program. Do you think the 

federal highway program's federal matching share is too high? Or is the share in the 

infrastructure proposal too low? 

The President's infrastructure proposal would build on strong Federal. State, and local 

partnerships and tap into private investment, where appropriate, to stimulate new 

infrastructure investment. The Federal Highway Administration should continue to be a 

s/rongfederal partner to state DOTs as well as Metropolitan Planning Organizations. If 

confirmed, I would be pleased to work with this Committee to determine the appropriate 

balance as legislation moves forward. 

32. MAP-21 required and the FAST Act continued the requirement for the use of 

performance management toward accomplishing seven national goals, including system 

safety, condition, and reliability and states and MPOs must incorporate the performancebased approach into their transportation planning. What is your opinion of requiring the 

states and MPOs to include national goal performance measures in their transportation 

planning? Do you think it is working? 

My understanding is that this framework is working Transportation planning is the key 

process States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations use to integrate the new 

performance requirements to both consider local priorities and support the national 

goals. If confirmed, I will look forward to working with you to assist States and MPOs in 

the shift toward a performance-based approach to planning. 

33. It increasingly appears that the introduction of automated vehicles (AYs) will have to be 

limited to operational domains, such as the Interstate Highway system, that have standard 

dimensions and design aspects. What are your ideas about what FH W A can do in 

preparation for the introduction of Automated Vehicles~ Do you believe that AV-related 

road design standards should be incorporated in proposals for FAST Act reauthorization? 

It is my understanding that FHWA has already announced that it intends to update the 

Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to accommodate new 

technologies. If confirmed, I will review current information with FHWA and other U.S 
24 


35944.016

DOT modes to understand the current state of operational domains and will work with 

infrastructure owner-operators and automated vehicle providers to identify design and 

traffic control guidelines and standards that are relevant to emerging technologies. 

34. The Federal Highway Administration's Emergency Relief Program is well regarded for 

its ability to respond to disaster damage to the nation's roads and bridges, however, the 

program is reactive more than preventative. What are your views of expanding the 

program or creating a sister program that would focus on retrofitting highway 

infrastructure for future extreme weather events, including at risk infrastructure that has 

not yet been damaged? 

As stated during the hearing, I am very interested in seeing what FHWA can do to 

improve resiliency in our transportation :,ystem as a whole. I am aware that some 

currentfunding programs include the eligibility to address resiliency and implement 

protections against extreme events. !{confirmed, I look forward to working wilh 

Congress and stakeholders to find innovative ways to address resiliency in the 

transportation system. 

35. While the TIFIA program's funding was reduced under the FAST Act, it continues to 

have substantial carryover balances each year. What do you think about broadening the 

eligibility criteria under TIFIA to include a broader array of projects to help more fully 

utilize the available TIFIA funds? 

I am aware that the President's infrastructure proposal last February included 

expanding TIFIA to include ports and airports along with broadening project eligibility 

for Private Activity Bonds (PABs). Types oflacilities eligible for PABs could include 

airports, docks, wharves, maritime and inland waterway ports and waterway 

infrastructure, mass commuting facilities, roads, bridges, tunnels, passenger railroads 

and surface freight transfer facilities. (l confirmed, I look forward to further discussion 

~feligibility-related proposals for TIFIA. 

Senator Gillibrand: 

36. In a report titled, "Computer Modeling and Evaluation of Side Underride Protective 

Device Designs" released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) in April 2018, NHTSA suggested the use of side underride protection devices 

(SUPDs) as a way to mitigate passenger car underride severity during impacts with the 

side of tractor-van trailers. In this report, side underride protection devices were 

successfully designed for oblique angle impacts of different severity. 

a. Are you aware of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

report I am referring to that substantiates the effective benefits of side underride 

protection devices (SUPDs) in collisions between passenger vehicles and tractorvan trailers? 
25 


35944.017

I am aware of the report you cited above. It is my understanding that the report 

was a preliminary analysis of this side underride issue that was limited in scope 

in regards to certain types of crashes, such as side-swipes. 

b. During your time as the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, did you take any preventative actions or measures towards 

combatting underride collisions? 

While the Agency did not initiate any formal rule making action during that 

period, it continued to collect data and evaluate crash reportsfrom motorists and 

commercial vehicles related to underride collisions. This information helped ro 

inform Agency action and research into underride collisions and the 

characteristics of underride events. 

c. If confirmed, will you commit to addressing the widespread underride collision 

issue in our country and prioritize saving lives by mandating side underride 

guards on certain types of trucks? 

If confirmed I will confer with my modal peers as appropriate on this issue. The 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA) all collaboratively.further the Department's safety mission, including 

advancing efforts to prevent commercial motor vehicle-related fatalities and 

injuries. 

37. The Government Accountability Otlice is expected to publish an Underride Report in the 

coming weeks. Once the report is published, will you commit to reviewing the findings 

of the report and evaluating how FHWA can work collaboratively within the U.S. 

Department of Transportation and with relevant stakeholders to improve underride 

protection? 

If confirmed I will confer with my modal peers as appropriate on this issue. 

38. I have heard from constituents in my state about the value of prioritizing local job 

creation in infrastructure projects. The use of local hiring preferences could create an 

even larger economic impact of federal investment and can offer opportunities for lowincome and marginalized populations to secure quality jobs building their communities. 

Unfortunately, longstanding federal statutes have prevented the use of local hiring, an 

issue that the Obama Administration started to address in a local labor hiring pilot 

program known as "Special Experimental Project No. 14" or SEP-14. In August 2017, 

the Trump Administration eliminated this pilot program with little explanation. This 

withdrawal of the proposed rule change reverted the Federal Highway Administration 

and the Federal Transit Administration to rules prohibiting geographic-based hiring 

preferences in contracts using federal transportation funding. 

a. Can you please share your views on local hiring? 
26 


35944.018

I understand the importance of local job creation and, if confirmed. I would be 

happy to discuss this issue with you. 

b. How can federal transportation investments prioritize economic impact and job 

creation for low-income and marginalized communities? 

I understand that FHWA 's existing requirements for Equal Employment 

Opportunity, On-the-Job Training, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, and 

other programs provide requirements and incentives to foster job opportunities 

and contracting incentives in these areas. If confirmed, I would be happy to look 

at this issue and to further evaluate how the Federal-aid program can be 

administered in a way that considers the needs of all communities. 

39. Extreme weather and climate-related events are having a major impact on transportation 

infrastructure. Following Superstorm Sandy, Congress appropriated more than $2 billion 

for FHWA's Emergency Relief Program. After Hurricanes Maria, Irma and Harvey, and 

the wildfires in 2017, Congress appropriated $!.37 billion. The Disaster Supplemental 

bill passed by the House of Representatives this year would appropriate another $1.65 

billion for the program. In short, we are spending billions of dollars to rebuild 

infrastructure damaged by major disasters. What responsibility does FHWA have to 

ensure that our federal highway dollars are being invested in projects that make our 

communities more resilient to the impacts of climate change and extreme weather? 

As I mentioned in the hearing, if confirmed, I will work to see what FHWA can do to 

improve resiliency in the transportation system. I am aware of and support the steps 

FHWA has taken to consider how resiliency can he built into the system as repairs are 

conducted, particularly in cases where facilities have been repeatedly damagedfrom 

extreme events. I believe that FHWA can play a leadership role in this area and provide 

good research and data to States and local governments to assist with resiliency 

investments. 

Senator Markey: 

40. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), speeding 

has been involved in approximately one-third of all motor vehicle fatalities for more than 

two decades. What additional resources and innovative solutions could the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) deploy to help reduce speed-related crashes? 

ff confirmed, I will collaborate with my fellow Administrators at the Department of 

Transportation and with FHWA 's partners to address safety issues. Speed 

management is a cross-cutting issue and requires a multi-disciplinary approach. If 

confirmed, I look forward ro continuing FHWA 's efforts to provide transportation 

professionals with rechnical and /raining tools to advance effective speed management 

and reduce .\peeding-relatedfatalilies. 
27 


35944.019

41. In 2017, nearly 6,000 pedestrians were killed and 70,000 injured in traffic crashes. To 

help reduce this unacceptably high level of pedestrian crashes, the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) has identified numerous countermeasures that can protect 

pedestrians, such as giving pedestrians more time to cross intersections, improving the 

design of sidewalks, and raised medians for pedestrian crossings. As Administrator, what 

steps would you take to encourage state and local governments to adopt effective 

infrastructure tools to reduce crashes involving pedestrians? 

If confirmed, 1 will ensure FHWA continues to provide robust technical assistance to and 

research new tools for States and local agencies on improvements in pedestrian safety. 

Such safety improvements are often context-specific, and different countermeasures may 

be needed by different communities. 1 lookforward to FHWA 's continued development of 

tools and resources that can be used to diagnose and address pedestrian safety issues. I 

will make this issue a priority if confirmed as Administrator. 

Senator Rounds: 

42. Section 5516 of the FAST Act provides an opportunity to update and revise the routes 

designated as eligible for certain use by certain longer combination vehicles in South 

Dakota. The routes currently available to those vehicles were designated decades ago. 

Improvements made to the road system in South Dakota, equipment upgrades, rural 

shipping needs and other factors made an update appropriate, as called for by the FAST 

Act. South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) submitted its 

recommendations for the update by letter, dated August 30, 2016. While the state 

considers its submission high quality, after significant time had passed, the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) requested a revised submission. SDDOT submitted its 

revised recommendations in June 2018, however, no decision has been made by FHW A. 

If confirmed, can you provide a specific timeline for making a decision? Additionally, 

should a decision be made that is not to the satisfaction of SDDOT before assuming 

administrator duties, would you commit to working with the state to review and, if 

necessary, appeal the decision? 

Yes, if confirmed I will provide you with a time line and 1 will work with SDDOT as 

necessary on this matter. 

Senator Sanders: 

43. Electric vehicles (EV) are an increasingly popular option for drivers in Vermont. and EV 

registrations increased by 32 percent in the last year. Improvements in EV charging 

infrastructure must keep pace. As directed by the FAST Act, FHWA is designating 

alternative fuel corridors to inform motorists of charging stations on highways. 

a. In your view, beyond the FAST Act requirements to designate EV corridors, how 

can the nation's highway system better accommodate and encourage EV 

adoption? 
28 


35944.020

I recognize the importance some drivers place on electric vehicles and the use of 

other alternative fuel vehicles. {f confirmed, I will work to explore ways beyond 

the FAST Act to make it easier for these vehicles to travel on our highway 

network. 

b. What other steps, beyond the FAST Act requirements to designate EV corridors, 

can FHWA take to expand on this work and improve EV charging infrastructure? 

If confirmed, I will explore these issues further. 

c. What are the barriers preventing EV adoption and EV charging infrastructure 

expansion? 

If con_firmed, I would need to look into the barriers that stand in the way of the 

adoption of electric vehicles and the expansion of charging infrastructure. I 

would be committed to collaborating with State agencies, the private sector. and 

stakeholders to better understand those barriers, 11•hich are not uncommon with 

new technology. 

d. If confirmed, will you pledge to work to make those necessary improvements to 

the nation's highway system as it relates to EV s? 

Ifcon.firmed, I would work with Congress and with FHWA 's partners and 

stakeholders with regard to any appropriate improvements. 

Senator Van Hollen: 

44. We have a bridge backlog totaling more than $120 billion and truck crashes continuing to 

increase at an alarming rate. These two facts do not bode well for the state of American 

infrastructure, especially when considering the damage done by a truck crashing on or 

into a bridge. Nevertheless, there have been several attempts over the past few years to 

increase the Federal weight limit for large trucks in the United States or to grant state and 

industry-based exemptions to the Federal weight limit. As Administrator, would you 

oppose efforts to increase the Federal truck weight limits and/or grant exemptions to the 

Federal weight limit? 

I am aware that the FHWA is exploring what investments would be needed to improve 

data and is researching the potential effects of increasing the Federal weight limit of 

truch on bridges and pavements. If confirmed, I would be interested in the outcome of 

that data collection and research. 

45. As you may know, the minimum level of insurance required by large trucks per event is 

only $750,000. This amount was set in 1980 and has not been raised once- not even to 

account for inflation despite the fact that this figure is supposed to adequately 

compensate victims as well as cover any infrastructure damage caused by the crash. As 

you may also know, commercial motor vehicle crashes cost our country upwards of$130 
29 


35944.021

billion in 2016, which American tax-payers ultimately pay for when the costs of truck 

crashes exceed the minimum insurance amount. 

a. As Administrator of the FHWA, would you support efforts to raise the minimum 

insurance amount to a figure that adequately compensates victims while also 

covering infrastructure costs associated with truck crashes in the United States? 

b. Would you support indexing this minimum insurance to medical cost inflation 

following any increase? 

If confirmed, I would be happy to work with my US DOT modal Administrator 

peers, including FMCSA, to consider this issue. 

Senator Whitehouse: 

46. President Trump's infrastructure plan proposes $200 billion in grants to encourage state, 

local, and private investment in infrastructure. However, it would also would cut over 

$240 billion from successful programs like TIGER and the Highway Trust Fund. In our 

meeting, I discussed with you the importance of programs like TIGER. 

a. Do you think we should be cutting program funding for the successful TIGER 

program? 

I believe there is universal acknowledgment for the need to invest in 

infrastructure. Whatever the specific programs and the amount of funding made 

available by Congress, I will ensure that FHWA assists the Department in 

administering it as effectively and efficiently as possible. 

b. Do you think we should be increasing the gas tax to fund infrastructure, as some 

Republicans in Congress have proposed? 

As you know, the Highway Trust Fund is pro;ected to have enough cash to cover 

highway expenditures through the end of fiscal year 2020. Some States are 

participating in a Vehicle Miles Traveled pilot program, which may provide 

excellent data on the effectiveness of various user-funded scenarios. Other States 

are looking at Public-Private Partnerships (P3s). and some States have raised the 

gas tax. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to address the 

diverse needs of travelers and our communities nationwide. 

47. As I discussed with you in the hearing, current sea level rise is a direct consequence of 

human activity and is occurring at rates not seen in thousands of years. The Fourth 

National Climate Assessment's Climate Science Special Report reports that global mean 

sea level has increased around 7-8 inches since 1900. 
30 


35944.022

a. Do you agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus that sea levels have 

risen and will continue to rise at an accelerated rate if humans do not stop 

emitting fossil fuels? 

b. How should the current and future consequences of climate change, including sea 

level rise, be incorporated into the transportation planning process? 

It is my understanding that improving the resiliency and reliability of the transportation 

system as well as reducing and mitigating stormwater impacts to surface tramportation 

have been included as part of the tramportation planning process. If confirmed, I will 

learn more about the process, including by collaborating with States and Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPOs) and work to improve the resiliency of infrastructure to 

any changing conditions. 

48. My state's Coastal Resources Management Council is planning for upwards of around 

nine feet of sea level rise along Rhode Island's coast by 2100. To prepare for this much 

water overtaking our shores, we need to protect evacuation routes from flooding, 

reinforce bridges that are exposed to corrosive saltwater and storms, and retrofit lowland 

wastewater treatment plants. These improvements are not cosmetic; they are essential if 

my state and others along the coasts have any chance meeting our needs over the next 50 

or 100 years. If we want to invest significant federal money on infrastructure, we should 

make sure those investments will survive for a useful period of time and not be consumed 

or degraded by rising seas. 

a. The President's infrastructure plan does not mention the terms "coastal," "sea 

level rise," ''storm surge,'' or "saltwater intrusion" once. How do you plan as 

FHW A administrator to support the specific investments needed to fortify our 

coasts against the consequences of climate change? 

Promoting infrastructure resilience will help protect puhlic safety and support the 

economy. If confirmed. I look forward to working wiTh Members of Congress and 

FHWA stakeholders to .find innovative ways to protect infrastructure investment 

. and ensure a safe and reliable highway system. 

b. Would you support existing programs like TIGER and INFRA putting a higher 

priority on grants that help protect our coastal infrastructure from sea level rise? 

These program are not at FHIYA. Bur I understand their selection criteria are 

publical/y available on Their notices offunding availability. 

c. Without the Federal Flood Risk Mitigation Standard in place, and with a proposal 

to undercut the NEPA process that requires federal agencies consider climate 

change, how does the administration propose designing and funding infrastructure 

projects that will survive projected future conditions, like higher seas and changes 

in precipitation? 
31 


35944.023

Building and maintaining infrastructure projects to last longer and decrease costs 

}rom the impacts of extreme weather and changes in environmental conditions is 

essential for FHWA to deliver a safe and reliable highway system. If confirmed. I 

would be happy to work with Congress and stakeholders to evaluate how to better 

support systematic consideration of resilience in our transportation syslem. 

49. Extreme weather events put infrastructure at risk, especially in New England. In 2010 in 

North Kingstown a muds! ide sent tons of soils on the train tracks near West Davisville 

Road exist on Route 403. Amtrak had to halt all trains heading northbound as two of the 

three tracks were covered with 5 feet of mud. This rain was caused by an epic historic 

March storm, which dropped 9 plus inches ofrain in the region. In 2010, during the same 

storm RI had to shut down parts of Interstate 95 in both directions, and Amtrak 

suspended the Aceta Express Service from New Haven Connecticut, to Boston, because 

of high water near the tracks. In 2014, another historic rain event in April brought caused 

damage to Scalloptown Road and Rocky Hollow Road in East Greenwich. McManus 

reported the muds! ide continued down into Greenwich Cove, and also appeared to 

undermine the area near some Amtrak rail lines. These are just a few examples. 

a. What do you see as the Federal Highways role in helping cities and towns respond 

to these increasingly frequent extreme weather events and ensure the safety of the 

nation's critical infrastructure? 

The FHWA has an important role to play in partnering with stakeholders to 

ensure !he safety of our nation's infrastructure, and assists States through the 

entire transporlation cycle. As I stated during the hearing, I think there is a lot of 

good research and data FHWA can provide to State and local governments on 

this issue. If confirmed, Jlookforward to continuing the work FHWA is doing to 

help cities and towns in ensuring the safety of our critical infrastructure and to 

working with you on these issues. 

50. I appreciate your pledge at the hearing that you will have an office devoid of any political 

retaliation or intimidation between staff. 

a. Can you commit that under your leadership no FHWA staff will suffer adverse 

employment actions for basing any of their work on scientific research or other 

widely accepted facts? 

b. Can you commit that you will resist any efforts to censor the work of FHW A staff 

that is based on scientific research or other widely accepted facts? 

I believe that FHWA should use the best available data in support of its work. 
32 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you for the incredible story of your father’s commitment and service to the people of New York, the people of this Country, and you continuing his legacy and concern. We 

are grateful you are willing to take on this responsibility. 

There are a couple of questions that you will get from members 

here. We ask that you answer those. They will also maybe have 

some written questions afterward. I hope you would respond to the 

questions throughout the hearing and respond to the questions 

afterwards for the record. 

There are a couple of questions I have to ask as I do of all nominees on behalf of the committee. 

Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this committee or 

designated members of this committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress and to provide information subject to appropriate and necessary security protections with respect to your 

responsibilities? 

Ms. NASON. Yes, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, documents in electronic and other forms of information are 

provided to this committee and its staff and other appropriate committees in a timely manner? 

Ms. NASON. Yes, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you know of any matters which you may 

or may not have disclosed that might place you in a conflict of interest if you are confirmed? 

Ms. NASON. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Let me start with questions. 

As we mentioned, you previously served as the Administrator of 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and were confirmed by the Senate. During your tenure as Administrator, what 

did you learn regarding the need for Federal policymakers to account for differences in priorities and circumstances among rural 

versus urban States? Obviously being from a rural area, how do 

you deal with that? 

Ms. NASON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

At NHTSA during my tenure, we were very clear that there are 

unique needs of rural States and even rural communities. With my 

own State of New York, we always like to say not all of New York 

is Manhattan. 

There are unique needs where I grew up. Infrastructure failings, 

aging roads, egress concerns which compare to the challenges of 

New York City, congestion and other quality of life issues, so we 

tend to focus on messaging, on a rural versus urban center because 

they have different transportation concerns, different safety concerns. Tribal governments have different safety concerns. 

There is one thing we learned at NHTSA. We had a very specific 

example of advertisements we were running. We learned that you 

cannot take the same commercial, no matter how much time and 

money you may have spent in producing and packaging it and expect it to have the same impact around the Country. It will not. 

You have to know the specific challenges of those communities. 

That is something I think I can bring to FHWA if I am confirmed. 

33 

Senator BARRASSO. If confirmed, can we be assured that you will 

work diligently to make sure the Federal Highway Administration 

is sensitive to the concerns of rural States like Wyoming? 

Ms. NASON. Yes, of course. 

Senator BARRASSO. Many States and others have appeared before 

this committee strongly supporting the distribution of highway 

funds by the formula we have set up. They have told us that adequate formula funding is important because it provides the flexibility needed to plan effectively and that it enables States to put 

funds to work faster, a key issue for the States. 

Do you agree that the existing formula programs do enable 

States to address their priorities more effectively and more expeditiously than trying to create new programs that are less well understood and would take time to establish? 

Ms. NASON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

I think, from what I have heard and speaking with our partners 

from my experience at the State Department in the construction of 

embassies and consulates, what is most critical is the certainty in 

the funding stream. 

I think that is something that if I am confirmed, I would be 

happy to work with you and the members of the committee to 

make sure that States can plan, which I think is most essential. 

Senator BARRASSO. You would also likely agree that there is 

unanimous consensus that transportation projects often take too 

long to complete and that we need to work together to find ways 

to further streamline the process while still protecting the environment. 

We have heard testimony before this committee that suggests 

one of the reasons that projects are significantly slowed down is too 

many agencies are required to take action to approve a single 

project. 

Instead of being done concurrently, they are being done consecutively. You have to wait for one and then another and another. 

How important is streamlining to timely project delivery and how 

can we best achieve it? 

Ms. NASON. I think streamlining, as you noted, is essential for 

helping resolve and making improvements more quickly. Having 

served as the NHTSA Administrator at a time when we were raising CAFE standards for the first time in many, many years, I can 

tell you it is a challenge even internally to bring everyone to the 

table and resolve interagency concerns. 

I think that is a role where FHWA can be quite helpful. If I am 

confirmed as FHWA Administrator, that is a leadership responsibility that I would like to take on. 

Senator BARRASSO. We tend to be amazed at the power of innovation, vehicles coming onto the market right now that keep drivers 

from leaving their lanes, even hit the brakes in an emergency. 

Within the next decade, I think we are likely to see even greater 

advances in connected and autonomous vehicles. The innovations 

have the potential to provide significant safety and efficiency benefits, I think, to the traveling public. 

We had a discussion last night where people said, will I ever actually want to buy another car or will I just use a ride-sharing 

service for people living in major cities. What role should the FedVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:11 Apr 24, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\35944.TXT VERNE
34 

eral Highway Administration play in preparing our roadways and 

communities, both rural and urban, for the arrival of these new 

technologies? 

Ms. NASON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I noted in my opening statement, I think it is going to be very 

important for modal administrators, all modal administrators at 

the Department of Transportation to work together and to share 

research and best data because many of these technologies cut 

across the modes in impact, NHTSA, but also Federal Motor Carrier and Federal Highways. 

If I am confirmed as Federal Highway Administration Administrator, I will work closely with my colleagues to make sure we are 

providing the best data and information to all of our partners. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you and congratulations again. 

Ms. NASON. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I would like to follow-up on the Chairman’s 

question with respect to environmental streamlining. I would like 

to look a little bit at the Federal-State partnership as a recovering 

Governor. I would like to dwell a bit on safety. 

I want to start with climate change. My neighbor to my left, my 

Delmarva buddy, Senator Cardin, and we have another Maryland 

Senator here, Chris Van Hollen, who will join us later I suspect but 

we live in an area where the land is sinking and the seas are rising. In fact, Delaware is the lowest lying State in America. It is of 

great concern to us. 

I have a son in California. North of where he lives, they had 

these incredible wildfires in Oregon, Washington and Montana, 

much bigger than Delaware, if you can believe that. In Ellicott 

City, which Senator Cardin and Senator Van Hollen represent, as 

I recall they had two 500-year floods, two 1,000-year floods within 

20 months of each other. 

Some people think climate change is not real, it is esoteric. It is 

real. We see it every day. Our transportation system is a major 

source of greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the greatest source of 

carbon is from our vehicles as it turns out today. 

Our transportation system is highly vulnerable to impact from 

extreme weather according to the National Climate Assessment report released by 13 Federal agencies across the Trump Administration. This is a quote of what they said: ‘‘Expected increases in the 

severity and frequency of heavy precipitation events will affect inland infrastructure in every region, including access to roads, the 

viability of bridges, and the safety of pipelines.’’ 

For my whole life, we have measured rainfall by inches. Now, we 

measure rainfall, in some instances, by the foot. 

As the Federal Highway Administrator, you are going to have an 

opportunity to influence highway roadway design, availability of 

vehicle charging and fueling infrastructure, and space for safe 

walking and bicycling. 

How will you use your leadership to address how our vehicle and 

travel patterns accelerate and exacerbate climate change? How 

would you propose to ensure that infrastructure is resilient to extreme weather? 

Ms. NASON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

35 

I wrote down what you said, ‘‘Our roads are vulnerable to extreme weather.’’ Having grown up on the very east end of Long Island, we lived through hurricanes regularly and our roads would 

flood. Then there is no egress and often there is no second egress 

because there was a ferry. That is not an option either. 

I spent my life watching my father, as a first responder, go out 

in extreme weather and help respond to these challenges, particularly on our roads when peoples’ instinct is to get in a car and try 

to drive away and then they are trapped. 

I am very interested in seeing what the Federal Highway Administration can do to improve resiliency in our transportation system 

as a whole. I think there is a lot of good research and data that 

FHWA can provide to State and local governments and the leadership role that FHWA can play. 

If confirmed, I would be happy to work with you on those issues. 

Senator CARPER. Let us talk a bit more about environmental 

streamlining. The Chairman touched on it. 

This Administration finally filled a number of key positions within the Administration that deal with streamlining. For the first I 

would say almost year and a half of this Administration, people responsible for dealing with streamlining and working to facilitate 

building of roads, highways, bridges, those positions were not filled. 

I am told by my staff that as of the beginning of this year, most 

of them have been filled. 

One of the greatest holdups in moving projects has been the lack 

of people in the right positions. I think that has been dealt with 

and that is good. 

This committee has provided numerous streamlining measures in 

both MAP–21 in 2012 and the FAST Act, two major transportation 

reauthorization bills, the latter was in 2015. Many of these new authorities were only just finalized in Federal Highway Administration regulations just a couple months ago, as you may know. 

If you are confirmed, will you commit to providing our committee 

with updates on how these streamlining measures are having an 

impact on project timelines and performance of how the FHWA is 

ensuring that environmental outcomes are being protected and improved? 

Ms. NASON. Yes, Senator Carper. I know there were many new, 

interesting proposals in MAP–21 and FAST for environmental 

streamlining that FHWA is working to administer. If I am confirmed, I will provide you with an update. 

Senator CARPER. I will just say this and close. 

It sounds like we have the right people in place within this Administration to do a better job on environmental streamlining. We 

have spent a lot of time, energy and effort in this committee in the 

last half a dozen years or more writing legislation focused on environmental streamlining. 

We need to find out what is working. We are going to count on 

you to tell us what is working and maybe what is not. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. NASON. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary Mineta. It is nice to see you again. 

36 

I want to thank you for your willingness to serve the public, for 

your career at NHTSA and also at the State Department. That 

demonstrates that you are unquestionably qualified for the position. 

I would like to thank your daughter, Alex, for her great studied 

decision to be attending my alma mater, Duke University next 

year. Obviously you are going in the right direction. 

In our meeting, thank you for coming to our office, we discussed 

that the position you are up for is so important to all of us because 

it helps us interact with all of our constituents. We get a lot of constituent issues around transportation issues, small ones and large 

ones. 

As you know, in West Virginia, we have Corridor H which is the 

last section of the Appalachian Development Highway System that 

needs to be completed. Because of the way we have treated the Appalachian Development Highway System, it is now funded out of 

the Highway Trust Fund. 

I just wanted a commitment from you, we talked about it, that 

you would move forward with me to try to find the easiest and best 

way, most efficient way, to complete that Corridor H part of that 

system. 

Ms. NASON. Yes, Senator. Of course I know how passionate you 

are about that. I would be pleased to work with you. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

By the way, Secretary Chao is fantastic, as you know. You will 

have a great leader at that department. 

The one question I get a lot is can you do an infrastructure package outside of the highway bill, a bipartisan infrastructure package. I think all of us would like to do it but there are a whole lot 

of deep questions. 

One of the questions was the funding issue when it came forward 

over the last Congress. One of the things that the Administration 

asked for was to get in the game, what private moneys can be acquired or what kind of State dollars? 

I would just like to tout my own State of West Virginia which 

passed a $1.5 billion bond called the campaign, not by the Governor 

but by others, FTDR, Fix the——Roads, because people are very 

passionate about the safety aspects and are on the roads in rural 

areas all the time. 

As we are thinking about this, it was obvious that we were going 

to be able to use that new State share as part of our match. I want 

to put that in your hat as you move forward that any proposal, I 

think, has to look at what the States are willing to do, what kind 

of skin in the game States are going to have and hopefully, we can 

elongate that timeline a little bit to go back to the past to scoop 

up some of these projects like our State that move forward with 

that. 

I would like to ask you if we could work together on that as we 

are developing hopefully the infrastructure package, but also the 

highway bill as well? 

Ms. NASON. Yes, of course, Senator, I would be pleased to work 

with you. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

37 

Both Senators talked about streamlining in the permitting process. One of the things that as we see particularly rural States falling behind in the deployment of rural broadband, one of the ways 

I think we are able to kind of make it more affordable is the dig 

once proposition, working with the Department of Transportation. 

We were on a bill last year, Senator Hatch had a bill, the Highway Right of Way Permitting Efficiency Act. We can work with the 

Department of Transportation, with the FCC, with the States, 

broadband councils and others to be able, while you are digging 

and while you are improving a highway, either new or maintaining, 

you can also use that as a way to run the high efficiency broadband 

into these rural areas that if left to their own devices, it is extremely expensive. 

I do not know if this is something you have actually thought 

about. I know it is probably premature but do you have any 

thoughts on that? 

Ms. NASON. Senator, I appreciate the question because we do 

spend time at the State Department talking about IG. As you 

know, it is not just 3G plus 2. It is a game changer so I think there 

may be interesting opportunities to save time and money for 

States. 

I would be happy to work with you on this if I am confirmed. 

Senator CAPITO. Yes, it just seems as though we get it our own 

way on something like this that is really not controversial. It is not 

controversial. Actually, I ran into a Federal Highway project that 

actually did provide the channel for the high speed Internet, although there is the cabling and everything but there was nothing 

in there. It was prepared for it so when and if, it is already ready 

and it saves a lot of money. 

In terms of the safety issues, you mentioned pedestrian and cyclist safety. You mentioned congestion at intersections. I have read 

several stories here in D.C. with some very tragic outcomes of pedestrian safety. 

Do you have any thoughts? Is it educating the American public; 

is it making signaling better? Is it the driver or is it all the above? 

What perspectives might you have on that? 

Ms. NASON. Senator Capito, thank you. 

I think it is all of the above so we always talk about the ease. 

We need to educate, we need to enforce, but we also need to engineer better. That is a piece where I think Federal Highway could 

provide some very valuable information and data. It would be 

something I could work on with my colleagues at NHTSA and in 

the department to see what improvements we could make. 

Senator CAPITO. I would really encourage you there because that 

to me is just so preventable and the results of tragedies. 

Thank you. Good luck. I plan on supporting you. 

Ms. NASON. Thank you. 

Senator CAPITO. Good luck at Duke. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator CARDIN. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Nason, thank you. Thank you for your willingness to serve 

and we thank your family because this is a family sacrifice. Thank 

38 

you all very much for sharing your loved one with the government. 

We appreciate it. 

To Norm Mineta, it is great to see you. I had the opportunity to 

serve with Congressman Mineta and see his talent as chairman of 

our committee. I know his reputation as Mayor of San Jose and 

really a mentor to many of us that are serving today. Norm, thank 

you for your extraordinary leadership. 

You have a really good person introducing you. That was a smart 

decision you made. 

Ms. NASON. My secret weapon. 

Senator CARDIN. Yes. It was the right thing to do. 

I really want to underscore what the Chairman said about this 

committee being able to work in a bipartisan manner to produce 

a strong bill. We did that with water and we want to do that with 

the reauthorization of surface transportation and perhaps other infrastructure bills. 

However, we are going to need your help because, as you said, 

you want predictable funding for transportation. I think this committee would like to make sure that we have long term predictability, so the longer term the reauthorization, the better it is for 

local governments that depend upon projects that go for multiple 

years to have the Federal partnership understood. 

It has to be adequate funding. That is going to be the real challenge. There are Democrats and Republicans who want to work together, who want to come up with a bipartisan plan but it is going 

to take your work with us in order to give us a path forward so 

we can accomplish those goals. Are you ready for that? 

Ms. NASON. I am ready for those, interesting conversations. 

Senator CARDIN. I thank you. 

I want to follow-up on Senator Capito’s point and your point on 

bicycle and pedestrian safety because we do have a program under 

the FAST Act that helps the TAP Program, the Transportation Alternative Program, which are funds that go to the local governments, the county governments so that they can plan in their community to try to protect pedestrians and the bicyclists by using a 

small amount of money for paths, trails and those types of issues. 

This is a bipartisan commitment to establish that program. 

As we work toward the reauthorization, will you work with us 

to see whether we can perhaps strengthen that program so that we 

can reduce the growing number of fatalities with bicyclists and pedestrians, so we can work to try to deal with that using the existing tool of the Transportation Alternative Programs, perhaps enhancing that? 

Ms. NASON. Yes, Senator Cardin. If I am confirmed as Federal 

Highway Administrator, I would very much like to work with you 

and your staff to see what enhancements we can make to already 

existing programs. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate that. I think this is a program that 

does work. The challenge, of course, is it is a little bit unusual because first of all, the money goes directly to the local government 

and bypasses the States which they do not always like. 

Second, of course, it is for local enhancements which, at times, 

get lost as we look at the challenges we have. 

39 

I want to underscore the point that Senator Carper made in regard to climate change and resiliency. It is a major challenge we 

have, a major challenge in maintaining our existing transportation 

infrastructure as we look for new but it also recognizes we have to 

do things in a smarter way in order for public investments to have 

its maximum advantage. 

Are you prepared to work with us based upon what science is 

telling us so that our infrastructure investments are done in the 

best way, recognizing that these extreme weather conditions are 

becoming more frequent? 

Ms. NASON. Yes, Senator. I think Federal Highway could be a 

center of excellence for collection of good data and research. I 

would be pleased to work with you if I am confirmed. 

Senator CARDIN. I want to talk about the multimodal concepts. 

It took me a shade under 2 hours to get here today from Baltimore. 

That is a good time. It usually takes me longer than that. A commute that should be 45 minutes usually takes me about 2 hours 

and 15 minutes. I think it was the weather forecast that kept some 

people off the roads today so I made it a little bit faster. 

We live in the worst congested area in the Country. We really 

need to invest in multimodal. We have to get people out of cars into 

transit. We need to deal with the issues of the commuter rails. We 

have to deal with all of the above. 

Are you prepared to use your leadership, if confirmed, so that we 

have a sensible, multimodal transportation commitment to be as 

friendly as we can to reduce congestion in the most environmentally friendly way? 

Ms. NASON. Yes, Senator. Peoples’ transportation needs are diverse. There are a lot of factors that go into choosing how you get 

from one place to another from time to cost. I would be happy to 

work with you on those issues if I am confirmed. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate that and I look forward to working 

with you. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Senator BRAUN. 

Senator BRAUN. Thank you. 

It was a pleasure meeting you the other day. 

I am from Indiana and we have a lot to address in infrastructure 

needs. You have to look forward. It is a very capital intensive 

thing. Our current budget and the condition it is in, where interest 

is dominating a big portion of it but mostly when it comes to the 

fact that we seem to be the least capable of taking on a big project 

like infrastructure across the Country just like we were in Indiana, 

to keep maintenance in line and actually do new stuff. 

Do you think it is realistic to maintain and 80–20 traditional 

funding role to really accomplish what the Nation’s needs would 

be? 

Ms. NASON. Thank you, Senator. 

As you and I discussed, Indiana has made some strong choices 

regarding investment. The question of match and how we are going 

to finance the next legislative proposal, whatever this committee 

chooses to do, is one that I do not think FHWA should dictate but 

40 

be a part of the conversations because, as you know, what works 

in Indiana does not work in New York. 

I would be happy to work with you as we move forward on legislation to see whether we have the right balance. 

Senator BRAUN. Thank you. 

My personal opinion is we are going to have to come up with 

something new. 

In Indiana, we were creative. We did what was called a Community Crossings Program which was to challenge counties and cities 

to actually put skin in the game. Of course they universally complained about it in its formulation. They indicated that was the 

State’s responsibility. All I can tell you is it has been an overwhelming success. 

Do you think that States that put more of their own skin in the 

game should receive some type of priority when it comes to Federal 

funds that are going to be increasingly scarce? 

Ms. NASON. I do think States which have demonstrated leadership are States that we can work closely with and learn from, how 

they were able to message and what their success was, certainly 

a State like Indiana. 

I would be happy to work with you on whatever changes this 

committee decides to make in the next legislation. 

Senator BRAUN. I would like to ask you to give some thought to 

how you think a similar dynamic might work because it is my opinion that if we are going to address infrastructure needs, it is going 

to take something different from what we have had leading up to 

this point. 

In general, on infrastructure, it is not only the condition of maintenance but there are so many new things that need to be done. 

In your opinion, when it comes to maintenance of roads and 

bridges, where do you think it really is on the Federal landscape? 

I can tell you when we looked at it in Indiana, probably back in 

2015, almost half a percent of our roads and bridges were headed 

in the wrong direction. Until we basically doubled our stream of 

funding, we were going to let that trajectory continue. 

How are you sizing up the Federal picture? Is it similar to what 

we saw in Indiana or do you think maintenance is less of an issue 

and new construction might be the bigger challenge? 

Ms. NASON. I do think they are both important but I think maintenance is particularly critical. It is a place where Federal Highways can be very supportive and provide good information. They do 

condition and performance reports, for example, annually on the 

State of our bridges across the Country, not just State by State but 

how we are looking nationwide, where and how we need to invest. 

I think, if confirmed, Federal Highways has a lot of good information we can share with the Senators. 

Senator BRAUN. Very good. 

In summary of everything we talked about, please give thought 

and focus on how we get enterprising, responsible States to maybe 

have some preference when it comes to engaging and if they are 

willing to put more skin in the game that maybe they should get 

more of the scarce Federal dollars. 

Ms. NASON. Thank you. 

Senator BRAUN. Thank you. I yield. 

41 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Braun. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Welcome, Assistant Secretary Nason. We are glad to have you 

here. 

Secretary Chao appeared before this committee in May 2017. 

When she did, I asked her how sea level rise is affecting our coastal infrastructure. As you and I discussed in my office, Rhode Island 

has 400 miles of coast, and the measured sea level rise is a very 

serious and significant issue for us. 

The Secretary agreed to look into the issue, and I followed up 

with a letter to her that I would ask to be made a part of the 

record of the hearing. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

42 


35944.024

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE 

HHODt- ISLAND 

The Honorable Elaine Chao 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Secretary Chao: 

United ,States Semite WASHINCiTON DC 20510·~3905 

June 23, 2017 

At the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on May I 7, 2017, I spoke to you about 

how sea level rise is affecting our coasts. In particular, I have significant concerns that our transportation 

infrastructure is not being designed or built with future conditions in mind. I shared my reservations 

about the accuracy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's flood maps. These maps rely on 

outdated information and simplified models that do not accurately incorporate coastal conditions, and 

ignore the future potential for flooding from sea level rise, increased storm surges, and other changing 

conditions. You responded: "I am not aware of this issue, but I will certainly be aware [and] be educated 

about it." 

Based on the most recent NOAA analysis, the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council 

(CRMC) is now estimating between 9 and 12 feet of sea level rise for Rhode Island by the end of the 

century. This water will change the outline of our state and permanently flood homes, businesses, roads, 

bridges, and other important infrastructure. I produced a video 

\\.~.~l'llll<;~~~'.Sclffi'~~0.Jl'"l:'..'J.,;''0.'l.Dt.ill:Sl''JlClilJo~'J explaining this tuture, which 1 encourage you 

Included with this letter is the report "Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United 

States." This is the most recent NOAA analysis of sea level rise science. I've also included a recent 

article from the editor of Risk & Insurance, which speaks to the risks the housing market will face if we 

continue to do nothing to mitigate and prepare for sea level rise. The federal home loan mortgage 

corporation Freddie Mac has predicted "[t]he economic losses and social disruption may happen 

gradually, but they are likely to be greater in total than those experienced in the housing crisis and Great 

Recession." 

If we make infrastructure investments without considering future conditions, we are doing the taxpayers a 

disservice. Our coasts are particularly prone to a myriad of climate change consequences, and our 

infrastructure must be prepared for rising seas and increased storm surges. 

I hope we can work together on providing our coastal communities with the resources they need to thrive 

in the coming decades. 

United States Senator 
43 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Before receiving the Secretary’s formal response, we managed to get our hands on the draft response, the 

letter that the career staff sent up to the Secretary’s office for her 

final approval. Then shortly after that, we got the letter from the 

Secretary’s office. 

When you compare the two letters, you see some pretty significant, notable differences, which I have redlined here. One is that 

the phrase ‘‘sea level rise’’ here is struck out of the career letter 

and the word ‘‘rise’’ is replaced with ‘‘variations.’’ The term ‘‘variations’’ implies wrongly that the sea level rise that we’re seeing 

now in Rhode Island is consistent with natural changes over geologic time, when in fact, the current rise in sea levels is a direct 

consequence of human activity, of carbon pollution, and it is occurring at rates that humankind hasn’t seen in thousands and thousands of years. And we actually measure this stuff at Naval Station 

Newport. 

So there is that change. Then down here, the political staff presumably of the Secretary’s office, struck out ‘‘environmental conditions such as extreme weather events and climate change.’’ Well, 

we live in Rhode Island, in a world of extreme weather events and 

climate change. I think we all do. 

So what worries me about this is that it looks like we are seeing 

political censoring for ideological purposes. And I think that the climate denial and the censoring and the nonsense has got to stop. 

We may have disagreements about what to do about climate 

change; we ought to be having a bipartisan discussion about solutions. But this business of just striking it out of letters so that it 

doesn’t even come up, and we are not even allowed to talk about 

it, is ridiculous. 

So it forces me to ask you your assurance that you will not censor and ignore the facts and the science in the manner in which 

you go about your duties as a Federal Highway Administrator. 

Ms. NASON. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. I am unfamiliar 

with this issue, and I haven’t seen the letter. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And I don’t expect you to defend the letter 

or any of this. My point is that this is a continuing problem, dealing with this Administration. For those of us that have coastal infrastructure and that are coastal States, to have a Federal Highway Administrator who will pay attention to real facts and real 

science is a matter of importance. 

Ms. NASON. At NHTSA we always said, good data is king. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Good. 

Ms. NASON. And I am a firm believer in good data, so I can commit to you that we will give you the best possible information. I 

also wrote down the words political retaliation. That is not something that I have ever accepted, either at the State Department or 

at NHTSA. I have never seen any indications of that, but I can assure you I would not support having staff feel intimidated for any 

reason. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Good. One of the reasons that this is important is this Providence Journal headline from just a few days 

ago, Climate Change: Washed Away, Home Values Lost to Rising 

Sea Levels. What the study that formed the basis for this front 

page above-thefold article in my home State newspaper shows is 

44 

that Rhode Island has lost nearly $45 million in home appreciation 

values between 2005 and 2017. 

It is the Rhode Island part of a study that began in Florida and 

went up the coast through New Jersey. It hit Massachusetts, so 

when it hit Rhode Island, so Senator Markey had the same study 

now. If you lokao t all the different States that have been reviewed 

in this what was originally a peer-reviewed study in Florida, and 

has moved, the same methodology, to cover other States, there is 

a total of $15 billion lost in coastal home values. 

That is a big deal for these families and businesses. And it can’t 

be ignored. They are not alone. If you go on to look at their report, 

pull up the other one, here is what one of the authors of the report 

said: ‘‘Each time we analyze a new State, we see the same phenomenon. Increased tidal flooding leads to a loss in home value appreciation. As sea level rise accelerates, we expect a corresponding 

loss in relative home value to accelerate as well.’’ 

I can’t ignore that. And I can’t allow Administration agencies to 

ignore that, either. 

Go on to Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac is not an environmental organization, it is not a green organization, it is not a Democrat organization. It is a housing organization. And what Freddie Mac has 

warned is that rising sea levels and spreading flood plains appear 

likely to destroy billions of dollars in property and to displace millions of people. The economic losses and social disruption may happen gradually, but they are likely to be greater in total than those 

experienced in the housing crisis and great recession. 

I just want to make those points, because it shows how important it is to us to be getting fair and factual and properly based 

scientific determinations out of our Federal agencies. Because this 

stuff is serious and it is big and it is coming at us. 

Thank you to the Chairman for letting me go over my time. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator SULLIVAN. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Nason, welcome. Thank you for your service. 

I was looking at your bio. You might not know this, but are you 

the first potential Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration who is a black belt in karate? 

Ms. NASON. You know, I don’t know if they keep that statistic. 

I might be. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SULLIVAN. I just through that was interesting. 

Senator BARRASSO. I would point out she is the first one that actually has a TED Talk online of talking about her and showing in 

action her black belt abilities. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So if you ever have any issues with Senator 

Whitehouse. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I yield without the necessity of any application of force. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SULLIVAN. Just thought I might warn him. You have to 

be careful with her. 

45 

Anyway, listen, I wanted to talk briefly about another area 

where States lose money, and I think it is really important. That 

relates to permitting time lines. Particularly infrastructure time 

lines. 

My State, the great State of Alaska, is kind of ground zero on 

groups that like to delay and slow and shut down any kind of infrastructure. We are very resource-rich State, but infrastructure-poor 

State, almost 10,000 miles of roads, which probably is not much 

more than a lot smaller States in our Country. 

So what we have experienced, let me just give you a couple of 

examples. The King Cove Road, that is a road on the Aleutian Island chain, the Trump Administration finally approved that. That 

took about maybe 30 years, 12 miles. A twelve-mile road, dirt road. 

Took almost 20 years to permit a gold mine in Alaska, because of 

litigation. By the way, it is the Kensington Mine, it employs almost 

400 people at an average wage of $100,000. But 20 years of fighting 

and ridiculous delays on that. Took 7 years to permit an exploration well in Alaska, and $7 billion. Shell tried to do that and the last Administration made sure 

that it almost took a decade. It takes on average in America 7 

years to permit a bridge. Took over 8 years, almost a decade, to 

permit the Keystone Pipeline. 

This is just ridiculous, and it hurts States, it hurts average citizens. It hurts the Country. I guarantee it doesn’t take 19 years on 

average to go from permitting a highway, your job, to completion. 

Nine to 19 years. I don’t think China permits roads in a two-decade 

time period. 

So can I get your commitment to work with this Administration? 

I do think it is a bipartisan issue, by the way. I don’t think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think 20 years to permit a 

highway is a good idea. Can I get your commitment to work with 

this committee on permitting reform in a way that makes sense for 

the average American? This is not a partisan issue. Seven years to 

permit a bridge is madness. 

Ms. NASON. Yes, Senator, I would be happy to work with you and 

members of the committee. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I have a bill called the Rebuild America Now 

Act. It looks at common-sense permitting reforms, particularly for 

infrastructure and highways, to do what most Americans want, 

which is not cut corners on the environment, but not take a decade 

to permit a piece of infrastructure. Can I get your commitment to 

work with me and this committee on those issues? 

Ms. NASON. Yes, Senator, I would be pleased to review that legislation and work with you. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me ask, I also want to get your commitment to come to Alaska. Like I said, we have a lot of unique challenges in my State, some of which relate to permitting. There are 

certain groups that usually don’t live in my State that want to 

make sure you can’t build a road in Alaska, even though most 

States and communities can build roads. They seem to want to 

make sure we can’t build roads. 

But one of the things, the FHWA recently put out a guidance 

memo that I would like to sit down with you and discuss a little 

bit more. It significantly shortens the time line on when the conVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:11 Apr 24, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\35944.TXT VERNE
46 

struction projects and seasons close. As you might know, in Alaska, 

we have a really short construction season relative to any other 

State because of our long winters. So can I get a commitment from 

you to work with me just on some of the elements of that memo? 

Just because I don’t think it looks at unique aspects of different 

States, particularly different construction time lines. 

Ms. NASON. Senator, first of all, I haven’t’ been to Alaska in 

many years. I would be pleased to go, with you and your staff. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Good. Great. We would love to host you there. 

Ms. NASON. Always a beautiful trip. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Good. And then finally, just if you haven’t, 

and I am running out of time here, but your vision, I know you laid 

it out in your opening statement, but can you list very quickly your 

top three priorities on what you want to get done as the Administrator? 

Ms. NASON. Sure. Thank you, Senator. 

I would like to focus, of course, on safety. But I am particularly 

interested in pedestrian and cyclist safety, which was an issue I 

didn’t get to spend that much time on at NHTSA. We had so many 

congressional mandates that we were trying to implement. So that 

is something I would like to go back to, and I think Federal Highways can be very important there. 

I also think there is a lot of interesting new technologies that are 

very cross-cutting across the modes. So I would like to work with 

my fellow modal administrators to see what the advantages and 

disadvantages of these new technologies are and how can we implement them safely. 

Third, I would like to travel. I would like to go and meet people 

where they are. That was very important at NHTSA, to go and 

visit communities locally, instead of bringing everyone to Washington, to hear first-hand about the challenges they are facing. So 

that would be something I would like to work on. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Cape Cod, economic pillar, Massachusetts, recreational oasis. But 

only accessible by, on land, by two bridges build in the 1930’s by 

the Army Corps of Engineers. They are deteriorating and we are 

going to need some help in order to make sure that we have, in 

the 21st century, as good a system as we had in the 20th century. 

The Army Corps owns the bridges. It is currently conducting a 

study to evaluate options for replacing the bridge, which could cost 

up to $600 million. The Army Corps’ entire budget is only $6 billion 

a year that they have to use to support every one of their programs. 

So we are going to be in a process of talking to the Army Corps, 

which we are already about this. And as we talk about a surface 

transportation bill, which the Chairman is talking about bringing 

through this committee, I am going to be fighting to make sure the 

Federal Highway Administration has the resources and the authorities it needs to help replace these bridges. 

Would you commit to work with me on this very complex project? 

47 

Ms. NASON. Yes, Senator Markey. As you know, I am in Connecticut. I have friends who leave for Cape Cod at 2 in the morning 

so they can avoid the traffic, so I would be happy to work with you 

on that. 

Senator MARKEY. Excellent. So you are an expert on this. 

Ms. NASON. I have never been stuck on the bridge. 

Senator MARKEY. Yes. Mark Twain used to say an expert is anyone who lives more than 200 miles away from the problem. So people now have to anticipate getting up at 2, knowing that there is 

a problem they are going to have to deal with when they hit those 

bridges at Cape Cod. 

Senator Whitehouse has already talked about the impacts of climate change on our highway system. What I would ask from you 

is that you would work with us to encourage transportation planning organizations to reduce vehicle miles traveled, curb greenhouse gas emissions when using Federal funding for highway 

projects. Can you make that commitment to us? 

Ms. NASON. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. Next, we have an increasing problem, again related to climate change, because it clearly is having 

an impact on the ability for people even to escape. We have seen 

that in Hurricane Harvey, Irma, Maria, western wildfires, flooding 

in the Midwest, to name a few. The Federal Highway Administration has found that many of the Nation’s critical mass evacuation 

routes face a series of impediments, including evacuation planning 

equipment acquisition, resiliency and capacity. Would you support 

providing more resources to State and local governments to improve the ability of people to get out of harm’s way? 

Ms. NASON. Again, Senator, having grown up on the very east 

end of Long Island and been stuck, and being the daughter of a 

first responder, I understand how frightening it is for people when 

they are trapped during any kind of catastrophic weather event. So 

I would be pleased to work with you, if I am confirmed, to make 

sure that are building greater resiliency into our system. 

Senator MARKEY. I am going to re-introduce my ESCAPE Act, 

Enhancing the Strength and Capacity of America’s Primary Evacuation Routes, as legislation. I would love to work with you on that 

as we are moving with the Surface Transportation Bill, which the 

committee is going to be considering. 

Then finally, it is on cybersecurity, it is on the issue of the connected car era that is about to dramatically expand. We already 

have it, but it is going to be on steroids. Every vehicle will be a 

computer on wheels, and gathering massive amounts of data about 

each and every person, each and every family, each and every child 

in those vehicles. Everything that they are doing is going to be inside of a data base. 

But it will also be gathered because there will be a digitization 

of the roads, bridges, other transportation infrastructure. So I want 

to work with you on the issue of cybersecurity as we are now planning in the next generation, the 21st generation of all of this infrastructure. Because this information, historically, has just been 

within the family. Now, the government will have access to it as 

well. Could you talk about that a little bit? 

48 

Ms. NASON. Senator Markey, we spend, as the Assistant Secretary for Administration at the State Department, as you know, 

State spends a great deal of time talking about cybersecurity, more 

in closed briefings than open. But it is an issue that as the chief 

procurement officer, the whole procurement team is spending more 

and more time on thinking about, where is our tech coming from, 

who are the providers who are supporting it, what data is it collecting, where is it being stored. So I would be pleased to work 

with you on that. 

Senator MARKEY. Great. So on the one hand we don’t want 

FHWA to be compromising the privacy, but we also don’t want our 

own Federal Government to be compromising the information of 

people as they innocently are driving the roads and bridges of our 

Country. It should be their business, not the business of the Federal highway Administration. So I want to work with you on that 

as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Markey. Senator 

Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

this hearing, thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. Nason, the construction of the highway system remains one 

of the most transformative achievements in our Nation’s history. 

While these highways connected cities and towns from coast to 

coast and to the global market, the construction of this system too 

often destroyed communities, particularly minority communities. 

I have seen first hand in my State where Robert Moses steamrolled historic neighborhoods in order to build highways that 

served commuters, often at the expense of those who lived there. 

InterState 81 cut through neighborhoods in Syracuse, severing residents from the broader community and limiting their economic opportunity. 

The I–81 viaduct through downtown Syracuse is now past its 

useful life and the State is studying options for replacement. After 

conversations with community stakeholders in Syracuse, I have 

voiced my support for the construction of a street-level community 

grid to replace the elevated portion of I–81 as a way to revitalize 

all of Syracuse’s downtown and connect all of the community to opportunity. Communities across our Country face similar decisions 

as our infrastructure continues to age. 

This creates real opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the 

past and reimagine how we build a transportation infrastructure to 

be more equitable. What role should the Federal Government play 

in addressing the past Federal Highway projects that marginalize 

some communities, especially minority communities? 

Ms. NASON. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. As a New Yorker, I 

certainly know who Robert Moses was. I have been stuck on that 

parkway. 

I agree that the system was transformative. I think Federal 

Highways is in a place where, not to dictate to State and local governments, but to make sure that we are working with MPOs and 

State and locals that are planning for connectivity of all communities, and to help provide good information and the best data possible, so that States and local and tribal governments can make 

49 

better decisions about making sure that all communities are connected and benefited. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. That sounds good. What do you think the 

Nation can do to prioritize economic and environmental justice in 

our transportation planning? 

Ms. NASON. I don’t want to overState Federal Highways’ role. 

But I do think there are many ways that we can work with our 

partners, associations, MPOs and others, to make sure that we are 

thinking through and we are asking some of these tough questions 

of State and local governments, and to make sure that they are 

thinking through all of the challenges. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. Different topic. Truck 

underrides are a major cause of death and injury on our Nation’s 

Federal highways. Last year, the National Sheriff’s Association was 

the first law enforcement organization to endorse the Stop 

Underrides Act, a bipartisan bill. They endorsed this bill because 

day in and day out, the witness the aftermath of underride crashes 

and have experienced the loss of their fellow law enforcement officers in these accidents. 

First responders know that their own safety and the safety of the 

public that they serve continues to be put needlessly at risk every 

day because we don’t have effective and comprehensive truck 

underride protection. Drawing on your experience from NHTSA, do 

you believe it is necessary to update the 1998 USDOT rulemaking 

to require stronger performance standards for rear underride 

guards? 

Ms. NASON. Senator, I know there was a horrific crash in upState New York. And putting on my NHTSA hat for a minute, I 

can say that we are always interested in knowing if there is better 

data. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Right. 

Ms. NASON. And reviewing and updating standards, I believe 

IHS has some new information that they might be able to share 

and provide additional information that Federal Highways, again 

as I noted in my opening statement, I hope to work very closely 

with the NHTSA Administrator, with Federal Motor Carriers. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I would like to work with you to make sure 

we get better data collection, and we can do a more comprehensive 

solution to this urgent crisis. 

Ms. NASON. Sure. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Similarly, last October, 20 people died in a 

horrific limousine crash in Scoharie, New York, making it the deadliest transportation accident in the United States in 9 years. Since 

the accident, many concerns have been raised about the safety of 

stretch limousines, and the loopholes in our Federal safety laws 

that result in lower occupant safety standards for these vehicles, 

relative to other vehicles on the road. 

Additionally, this accident occurred at a notoriously dangerous 

intersection on New York State Route 30. If confirmed, will you 

work with States and local officials to ensure that dangerous intersections are a top priority? As well, will you work to ensure that 

FHWA is doing everything possible to respond to local concerns 

about safety of potential dangerous intersections, and to make sure 

communities can mitigate those dangers that exist? 

50 

Ms. NASON. Yes, Senator, that was a horrific crash. I would be 

pleased, if confirmed, to have FHWA work with State and local 

governments regarding dangerous intersections. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. And I will submit my last two questions for 

the record. One is about using local work force to do large infrastructure projects, and the second is to talk about extreme weather 

and climate-related events having a huge impact on our transportation infrastructure. I will submit those for the record. Will you 

submit answers for those? 

Ms. NASON. Yes, Senator. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record 

the January 2018 GAO report entitled Highway and Transit 

Projects into the record, as it relates to environmental reviews. 

GAO notes, and had previously reported, that 99 percent of projects 

are not being held up by complex NEPA reviews. Federal Highway 

Administration officials expressed that categorical exclusions still 

constitute the vast majority of NEPA reviews for highway projects. 

I ask unanimous consent. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

51 


35944.025

GAO 

January 2018 

GA0-18-222 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Report to Congressional Committees 

HIGHWAY AND 

TRANSIT PROJECTS 

Evaluation Guidance 

Needed for States 

with National 

Environmental Policy 

Act Authority 
52 


35944.026

Highlights a report to 

Why GAO Did This Study 

Since 2005, over 30 provisions have 

been ena.cted in law to speed up tM 

of highway and transit 

mainly by streamlining the 

NEPA requires 

evaluate the 

environmental effects of 

the human 

project delivery 

provisions incfuded new categorical 

review 

DOT 

included provisions in statute 

assess the use of these 

provisions and whether they have 

accelerated This 

project 

used by slate 

transit ag~ncies 

and the reported effects, and (2) the 

extent to which DOT has '!SSigned 

NEPA authority to states and the 

reported effects, among other 

objectives. GAO surveyed all state 

DOTs and interviewed federal and 

state DOT officials and 11 selected 

transit agencies GAO determined were 

to have been affected by the 

analyzed Information 

What GAO Recommends 

HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT PROJECTS 

Evaluation Guidance Needed for States with National 

Environmental Policy Act Authority 

What GAO Found 

Federal Highway Administration 

Arlmirri,t.·"tir)n are responsible for National 

and transit 

DOT 

FHWA does not review the states' timeliness measures and time savings 

estimates, but has broad to offer and technical 

general 

evaluation methodologies 

ensure that states 

decisions on reliable 

Information to assess whether 

environmental reviews 

sound evaluation 

-------------United States Government Accountability Office 
53 


35944.027

Contents 

Letter 

Background 4 

The Three Most Recent Transportation Authorizations Included 

Numerous Provisions for Accelerating Highway and Transit 

Project Delivery 8 

State DOTs Reported That a Number of Provisions They Used 

Sped Up Highway Project Delivery, While for Most Selected 

Transit Agencies Effects Were Unclear 11 

DOT's FHWA Has Assigned Six States NEPA Authority, and Two 

States Reported Time Savings, but FHWA Has Not Provided 

Guidance on Measuring Effects 27 

Conclusions 35 

Recommendation for Executive Action 35 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 35 

Appendix I Available Information about the Number, Percentage, and Costs of 

NEPA Reviews for Highway and Transit Projects 38 

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 41 

Appendix Ill Project Delivery Provisions Included in the Three Most Recent 

Federal Transportation Reauthorization Acts That Apply to 

Highway and Transit Projects 47 

Appendix IV Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 55 

Appendix V Transit Agency Provisions Checklist and Responses Regarding 

Awareness and Use 79 

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Transportation 82 

Page I GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
54 


35944.028

Appendix VII 

Tables 

Figures 

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 84 

Table 1: Number of Project Delivery Provisions GAO Identified, 

Grouped by Category for Highway and Transit Projects 8 

Table 2: Project Delivery Provisions Included in Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: 

A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), and the Fixing 

America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) That 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 47 

Figure 1: Number of States That Used Optional Project Delivery 

Provisions as Reported by Departments of Transportation 

in 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 12 

Figure 2: Percentage of Departments of Transportation in 50 

States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico That 

Reported Various Effects of Used Optional Highway 

Project Delivery Provisions 14 

Figure 3: Number of Departments of Transportation in 50 States, 

the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico That Reported 

Various Effects of the Required Highway Project Delivery 

Provisions 18 

Figure 4: Number of 11 Selected Transit Agencies That Reported 

Using Transit Project Delivery Provisions 23 

Page li GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
55 


35944.029

Abbreviations 

AASHTO 

CTA 

DOT 

EIS 

FAST Act 

FHWA 

FTA 

MAP-21 

MOU 

MTA 

NEPA 

PAPAl 

SAFETEA-LU 

SEPTA 

state DOT 

TrAMS 

American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials 

Chicago Transit Authority 

Department of Transportation 

environmental impact statement 

Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act 

Federal Highway Administration 

Federal Transit Administration 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

memorandum of understanding 

New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Project and Program Action Information 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation 

Authority 

state department of transportation 

Transit Award Management System 

This is a work of the U,S. government and is not subject to copyright protection 1n the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and dtstnbuted in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wtsh to reproduce this material separately. 

Pago iii GA0~18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
56 


35944.030

441 G St.N.W. 

Washington, DC 20548 

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

January 30, 2018 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Bill Shuster 

Chairman 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)-which requires 

federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental effects of 

proposed projects on the human environment-has been identified by 

critics as containing time-consuming requirements and praised by 

proponents for, among other things, helping protect the environment and 

bringing public participation into the government's decision making. The 

Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) through its division offices in each state and the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) through its 10 regional offices are the federal 

agencies responsible for NEPA compliance on highway and transit 

projects. respectively. Project sponsors-typically a state department of 

transportation (state DOT) or a local transit agency-receive FHWA and 

FTA grant funds, oversee the construction of highway and transit projects, 

develop the documents on which FHWA and FTA base their evaluations 

of environmental effects, and collaborate with federal and state 

stakeholders. In short, project sponsors generally prepare the documents 

necessary for NEPA compliance, while the federal agencies must 

ultimately approve the documents. In this report we refer to these 

activities collectively as "environmental review" or "NEPA review." 

We have previously reported that environmental review is one of a 

number of factors affecting the time frame for completing transportation 

Page 1 GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
57 


35944.031

projects (delivery). 1 The past three surface transportation 

reauthorizations-the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005; 

the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) in 2012; 

and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) in 

2015-contain a number of provisions, called "project delivery 

provisions"-aimed at accelerating the delivery of highway and transit 

projects, mainly by streamlining the NEPA review process.' These 

provisions include, for example, the NEPA Assignment Authority 

provision, which provides authority for the relevant DOT administration, 

under certain circumstances, to assign federal NEPA authority to states 

and thereby eliminate the federal approval role with respect to individual 

projects. 'In this case, FHWA and FTA are the relevant DOT 

administrations to assign NEPA authority to states for highway and transit 

projects, respectively. 

MAP-21 and the FAST Act included provisions for GAO to assess, among 

other things, whether project sponsors have used the project delivery 

provisions and the extent to which the provisions have sped up the 

delivery of highway and transit projects. 4 This report: 

identifies provisions aimed at accelerating the delivery of highway and 

transit projects that were included in the last three surface 

transportation reauthorizations; 

examines which provisions were used by state DOTs and selected 

transit agencies and the provisions' reported effects, if any, on 

accelerating the delivery of projects; and 

evaluates the extent to which DOT has assigned NEPA authority to 

states and the reported effects. ' 

Highway Projects: Some Federal and State Practices to Expedite Completion 

GA0-12-593 (Washington, D.C. Jun. 6, 2012). 

2

Pub L No. 109-59, 119 Stat 1144 (2005), Pub. L No. 112-141, 126 Stat 405 (2012), 

Pub. L No. 114-94, 129 Stat 1312 (2015) 

3

This program is authorized in 23 U.S C.§ 327 and is called the "Surface Transportation 

Project Delivery Program ., 

4

Pub L. No. 112-141 § 1323, 126 Stat. 405,553-554 (2012). Pub. L. No. 114-94 § 1318, 

129 Stat 1312, 1404-1405 (2015) 

Page 2 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
58 


35944.032

In addition, in appendix I, we identify available information on the number 

and percentage of the different types of NEPA reviews and the costs of 

conducting NEPA reviews. 

To address the first objective, we reviewed the past three surface 

reauthorizations to identify highway and transit project delivery provisions 

and categorized these provisions. To determine states' use and reported 

effects of the provisions on highway projects, we surveyed state DOTs 

within all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. We had a 

100 percent response rate. Based on the survey results, we conducted 

follow-up interviews with officials from 10 state DOTs to discuss their 

perceived effects of the provisions in greater detail. We selected these 

state DOTs to include geographically diverse states and states that 

reported varying levels of use of the provisions and effects. To determine 

use and the perceived effects of the provisions applicable to selected 

transit projects, we selected 11 transit agencies and interviewed officials 

at those agencies. We selected these agencies based primarily on the 

number of times they issued a notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) in the Federal Registerfrom 2005 

through 2016 to identify those transit agencies that may have experience 

preparing EISs or some another NEPA review and experience using 

transit project delivery provisions. We also considered other factors, such 

as ridership and geographic location, to select the 11 transit agencies. 

The results of the states' and transit agencies' interviews are not 

generalizable. 

To evaluate the extent to which DOT has assigned NEPA authority to 

states, and the effects states have reported from assuming NEPA 

authority, we identified the states that have been assigned NEPA 

authority, based on information from FHWA, and interviewed state DOT 

officials in those states. However, we did not include one of these states 

because that state did not assume NEPA authority until November 2017. 

For the states we included, we interviewed state DOT officials and 

reviewed relevant documentation including memorandums of 

understanding and analyses the state DOTs conducted on NEPA 

assignment authority, such as methodologies for calculating NEPA 

assignment time savings. In addition, we interviewed FHWA officials 

about procedures to oversee the performance of NEPA assignment 

states and interviewed FHWA division officials from those states. We 

compared FHWA's procedures to oversee NEPA assignment states 

Page 3 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
59 


35944.033

Background 

against standards for information and communication contained in 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. 5 

To determine available information on the number and percentage of the 

different NEPA reviews and costs of conducting NEPA reviews for 

highway and transit projects, we reviewed relevant publications, 

documents, and analyses, and discussed these with FHWA and FTA 

officials. 

For all objectives, we interviewed agency officials and stakeholders 

involved in highway and transit projects including FHWA, FTA, and 

relevant transportation and environmental organizations. We conducted 

this performance audit from August 2016 to January 2018 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives. For more information on our objectives, scope, and 

methodology, see appendix II. 

FHWA and FTA fund and oversee highway and transit projects, 

respectively. FHWA funds highway projects through formula grants to 

state DOTs, provides technical expertise to state DOTs, and conducts 

oversight of highway projects through its division offices in each state. 

FTA funds a variety of transit programs through formula and competitive 

grants and conducts oversight of transit projects' planning and design 

through 10 regional offices. Completing maJor highway and transit 

projects involves complex processes that depend on a wide range of 

stakeholders conducting many tasks. Project sponsors-the state DOTs 

and local transit agencies-are the entities that develop the 

environmental review documents to be approved by the federal agencies. 

Examples of highway projects that may undergo environmental review 

are bridge construction or roadway repaving, and examples of transit 

projects include extension of light rail lines or construction of passenger 

ferry facilities. Project sponsors that do not use federal funds for a project 

Standards tor Internal Control in the Federal Government, GA0-14~ 704G 

(Wasn1ngton, D.C. September 2014) 

Page4 GA0·18.222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
60 


35944.034

generally do not need to meet NEPA requirements, but may still need to 

satisfy state or local environmental review requirements' 

As we have previously reported, highway projects typically include four 

phases, and transit projects also follow similar processes. 7 

1. Planning: Project sponsors assess the need for a project in relation to 

other potential transportation needs. 

2. Preliminary design and environmental review: Project sponsors 

identity potential transportation solutions based on identified needs, 

the potential environmental and social effects of those solutions, a 

project's cost, and construction location. They then analyze the effect, 

if any, of the project and potential alternatives on the environment. 

Based on the analysis as well as public input the preferred alternative 

is selected. 

3. Final design and right-of-way acquisition: Project sponsors finalize 

design plans and, if necessary, acquire private real property for the 

project right-of-way and relocate any affected residents and 

businesses. 

4. Construction: Project sponsors award construction contracts, oversee 

construction, and accept the completed project 

In the preliminary design and environmental review phase, many activities 

are to be carried out by the project sponsor pursuant to NEPA and other 

federal laws.' NEPA's two principal purposes are to ensure (1) that an 

agency carefully considers detailed information concerning significant 

environmental impacts and (2) that environmental information is available 

to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and actions are 

6There are numerous state and local laws that projects must comply with. For example, 

several states, including California and North Carolina, have laws roughly equivalent to 

NEPA GA0-12-593 

7GA0-12-593 

8Agencies also use the NEPA framework to meet other environmental review 

requirements, such as requirements under the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water 

Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Federal resource agencies, such as the 

U,S Army Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service, are responsible for 

managing and protecting natura! and cultural resources like wetlands, historic properties, 

and wildlife. We have ongoing work on the environmental permitting by federal resource 

agencies for highway and transit projects and plan to publish our work in spring 2018. 

Page 5 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
61 


35944.035

taken. 9 For highway and transit projects, the project sponsor is 

responsible for preparing documentation showing the extent of the 

project's environmental impacts, in accordance with NEPA, and 

determining which of the three following documentation types is needed: 

An environmental impact statement (EIS), the most comprehensive of 

the three documentation types, is required for projects that have a 

significant effect on the environment. In broad terms, the lead federal 

agency, FHWA or FTA, starts the EIS process by publishing a notice 

of intent in the Federal Register. The lead agency then must engage 

in an open process-inviting the participation of affected government 

agencies, Indian tribes, the proponent of the action, and other 

interested persons-for determining the scope of issues to be 

addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a 

proposed action. The lead agency then is to coordinate as appropriate 

with resource agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or 

the Fish and Wildlife Service, solicit comments from the public on a 

draft EIS, incorporate comment responses as appropriate into a final 

EIS, and issue a record of decision. 10 

Project sponsors are to prepare environmental assessments when, 

among other things, it is not clear whether a project is expected to 

have significant environmental impacts. An environmental 

assessment is intended to be a concise document that, among other 

things, briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis for 

determining whether to prepare an EIS. If the agency determines that 

there are no significant impacts from the proposed action, then the 

agency prepares a Finding of No Significant Impact that presents the 

reasons why the agency made that determination. If the agency 

determines the project may cause significant environmental impacts, it 

conducts an EIS. 

Categorical exclusions refer to projects that would not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. These 

projects generally require no or limited environmental review or 

documentation under NEPA. Examples of highway projects that are 

L. No. 91-190 (1970), codified at 42 U.S.C §§ 4321-4347 

10The EIS must. among other things, (1) descnbe the environment that Wlll be affected, (2) 

identify alternatives to the proposed action, inc!ud1ng the no act1on alternative, and 1dent1fy 

the agency's preferred alternative, (3) present the environmental impacts of the proposed 

act1on and alternatives, (4) tdentify any adverse environmental impacts that cannot be 

avoided should the proposed action be Implemented and discuss means to mitigate 

adverse impacts 

Page 6 GA0·18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
62 


35944.036

generally processed as categorical exclusions include resurfacing 

roads. constructing bicycle lanes, installing noise barriers, and 

landscaping. 

While FHWA and FTA are the federal agencies responsible for ensuring 

NEPA compliance on highway and transit projects, if certain requirements 

are met, FHWA or FTA may assign a state and that state may assume 

federal NEPA authority. States assume this authority subject to the same 

procedural and substantive requirements as would apply to FHWA or 

FT A. Specifically, the NEPA Assignment Authority provision provides 

authority for FHWA to assign federal NEPA authority to states for 

approving an EIS, environmental assessment, or categorical exclusion. 

States must apply to FHWA or FTA, which reviews the state's suitability 

to assume the authority based on meeting certain regulatory 

requirements and the state's capability to assume the responsibility. 

States must enter into a written memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

and must, among other things, expressly consent to the jurisdiction of 

federal courts by waiving sovereign immunity for any responsibility 

assumed for NEPA. The MOU is for a term of not more than 5 years and 

is renewable. MOUs are unique to each state; however they all contain 

certain sections such as assignments of authority, acceptance of 

jurisdiction, and performance measures. For the first 4 years, FHWA is to 

conduct an annual audit to ensure compliance with the MOU, including 

compliance with all federal laws. After the fourth year, FHWA is to 

continue to monitor state compliance with the MOU, using a more limited 

review. 11 

In prior reports, we identified a number of factors that can affect the 

length of time required to complete transportation projects. For highway 

projects, we found that the large number of stakeholders and steps 

(which include environmental reviews) in the project delivery process, 

availability of funding, changing priorities, and public opposition can lead 

to longer project time frames. 12 For transit projects, we found that local 

factors specific to each project determine the project development time 

frame, including the extent of community support and extent of local 

planning prior to approval of funding. 13 We found that for 32 projects we 

11 23 U.S C.§ 327(h) 

12GA0-12-593. 

13GAO, Public Transit: Length of Development Process, Cost Estimates, and Ridership 

Forecasts for Capital-Investment Grant Projects, GA0-14-472 (Washington D.C: May 30, 

2014) 

Page 7 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
63 


35944.037

The Three Most 

Recent 

Transportation 

Authorizations 

Included Numerous 

Provisions for 

Accelerating Highway 

and Transit Project 

Delivery 

reviewed, the environmental review process was tied with stakeholder 

coordination as the third most frequently cited factor by transit project 

sponsors contributing to the length of the project development process. 

We identified 34 project delivery provisions that apply to highway projects 

and 29 such provisions that apply to transit projects. 14 These provisions 

are intended to streamline various aspects of the NEPA process, making 

it more efficient and timely. Most of the provisions apply to both types of 

projects. Based on our review, we grouped the provisions into four 

general categories: Accelerated NEPA Review, Administrative and 

Coordination Changes, NEPA Assignment, and Advance Planning (see 

table 1). See appendix Ill for the full list and a description of each project 

delivery provision we identified. 

Table 1: Number of Project Delivery Provisions GAO Identified, Grouped by 

Category for Highway and Transit Projects 

Category Highway projects Transit projects 

Accelerated National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Reviewa 

Administrative and Coord1nat1on Changes 

NEPA Assignment 

Advance Planning 

12 10 

17 17 

Total provisions: 34 29 

So>Jrca GAO omalySJs of Safe, Accountable, FleXJble, Efftc.ent Transportatoon Equ•ty Act A Legacy lor Users the Movtng Ahead for 

Progress •n the 21st Century Act. and the Foxmg Amenca:'s Surface Transportat•on Act ! GA0·18·222 

8

!n the Accelerated NEPA Review category, 5 provisions apply to both highway and transit projects, 7 

apply exclusively to highway projects, and 5 apply exclusively to transit projects. 

The Accelerated NEPA Review category's provisions generally establish 

certain conditions that permit projects, if the specific conditions are 

applicable, to exclude certain actions from a more detailed NEPA review. 

For instance, these provisions are primarily comprised of new categorical 

order to separately Identify each applicable provision, we combined provisions that 

were modified in later statutory language and did not specify among different versions of 

the provisions. 

PageS GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
64 


35944.038

exclusions. Additionally, the Minor Impacts to Protected Public Land 

provision authorizes a historic site, parkland, or refuge to be used for a 

transportation project if that project is determined to have a de minimis 

impact on the environment 15 

The Administrative and Coordination Changes category's provisions are 

more process oriented. These provisions, for example: (1) establish time 

frames for parts of the NEPA review process, (2) encourage the use of 

planning documents and programmatic plans as well as a coordination 

plan for public and federal agency participation in the environmental 

review process, and (3) seek to avoid duplication in NEPA review 

documents. 

The NEPA Assignment category's provisions authorize FHWA or FTA, as 

discussed above, to assign their NEPA authority to states. The first of the 

two provisions-the 'NEPA Assignment Authority' provision-authorizes 

FHWA or FTA to assign federal NEPA authority to states for reviewing 

EIS, environmental assessment, and some categorical exclusion reviews, 

so long as the categorical exclusion does not require an air-quality review 

that involves the Environmental Protection Agency. The second 

provision-the Categorical Exclusion Detennination Authority provisionallows FHWA or FTA to assign limited NEPA authority to states to review 

categorical exclusions. 16 This authority can apply to categorical 

exclusions with air-quality reviews, as well as all other categorical 

exclusions. 

The Advance Planning category's provisions are not part of the agency's 

environmental review process and are not applicable to transit projects. 

These provisions allow for certain activities in the highway project 

development cycle, such as land acquisition, to occur prior to NEPA 

approvaL The three provisions in this category include the following: 

15This provision is commonly referred to as "4(f) de minimis." A de minim1s impact is one 

that Is minor in nature and after takmg into account avoidance, min1m1zation, mitigation, 

and enhancement measures results in no adverse effect to the activities, features, or 

attributes qualifying a park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge for protection 

under SectiOn 4\f) 

16A state can assume responsibility for certain categorical exclusions under 23 U.S.C. § 

326. This program is formally known as the "State Assumption of Responsibility for 

Categorical Exclusions." 

Page 9 GA0~18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
65 


35944.039

The Advance Design-Build Contracting provision permits a state to 

release requests for proposals and award design-build contracts prior 

to completing the NEPA process: however, a contractor may not 

proceed with final design or construction during the NEPA process. 17 

The Advance Acquisition of Real Property provision authorizes states 

to acquire real property interests, such as land, for a project before 

completion of the NEPA process. 

The 2-phase Contracts provision authorizes the awarding of contracts 

on a competitive basis for preconstruction services and preliminary 

project design before the completion of the NEPA process. 

Most of the project delivery provisions are optional, which we define to 

mean that the relevant entities (a federal agency or state or local 

transportation agency), can choose to use the provision if circumstances 

allow. For example, a state highway project within an existing operational 

right-of-way may have the option to use the categorical exclusion for 

projects within an existing operational right-of-way. Specifically, 22 of the 

34 highway project delivery provisions and 17 of the 29 transit project 

delivery provisions are optional. By contrast, 12 provisions are 

requirements for both highway and transit projects, which we define to 

mean that federal agencies, or state or local transportation agencies that 

are subject to a provision must adhere to the requirements and 

obligations in the provision, if all the conditions for its use have been 

satisfied. Required provisions are primarily contained in the 

Administrative and Coordination Changes category. For example, for 

highway projects, the Programmatic Agreements for Efficient 

Environmental Review provision, enacted in 2012, requires FHWA to 

seek opportunities with states to enter into agreements that establish 

streamlined processes for handling routine projects, such as highway 

repair. Prior to 2012, FHWA actively encouraged programmatic 

agreements between state DOTs and FHWA division offices, but seeking 

opportunities to enter such agreements were not required. 

17

Design~build is a contracting method that combines the responsibi!lties for designing and 

constructing a project in a single contract instead of the more traditional approach of 

separating these responsibilities 

Page 10 GA0~18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
66 


35944.040

State DOTs Reported 

That a Number of 

Provisions They Used 

Sped Up Highway 

Project Delivery, 

While for Most 

Selected Transit 

Agencies Effects 

Were Unclear 

More Than Half of 

Optional Provisions Were 

Reported to Be Used by a 

Majority of State DOTs on 

Highway Projects 

According to survey responses, 10 of the 17 optional provisions included 

in the survey-which primarily fall under the Accelerated NEPA Review 

category-were each used by 30 or more state DOTs (see fig. 1).18 Fifty 

state DOTs reported using the Minor Impacts to Protected Public Land 

provision-the most of any of the provisions. Some of the less widely 

used provisions-the 7 provisions reported to be used by 21 or fewer 

states-only apply to specific circumstances or highway projects that 

many state DOTs undertake less frequently. For example, the Categorical 

Exclusion for FHWA-funded Ferry Facility Rehabilitation or 

Reconstruction provision would only apply to states that operate ferry 

services, a circumstance that may explain its relatively low use. Also, for 

3 of these 7 provisions, 1 0 or more states reported that they plan to use 

the provision in the future. For example, while 21 state DOTs used the 

Reduce Duplication by Eliminating Detailed Consideration of Alternative 

Actions provision, an additional17 state DOTs reported that they plan to 

180ur survey of state DOTs included 17 of the 22 optional provisions and all12 required 

provisions that apply to highway projects. We did not include the 3 provisions from the 

Advance Planning category, wh1ch do not directly relate to NEPA review, as part of our 

52-state DOT survey: we addressed these provisions in the foUow-up interviews with the 

10 selected state DOTs and discuss our findings later in this section. We also did not 

include the 2 provisions from the NEPA Assignment category because we spoke 

individually with officials 1n all of the states that have implemented or are in the process of 

implementing these provisions. We discuss these provisions later in the report 

Page 11 GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
67 


35944.041

use it All of the optional provisions were reported to be used by at least 

14 state DOTs. 

Figure 1: Number of States That Used Optional Project Delivery Provisions as Reported by Departments of Transportation in 

50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 

Optional project delivery provisions• 

Minor Impacts to protected public land 

Eliminating the documentation and prior approval requirement for categorical exclusion 

for highway safety' 

Elimimo~ting the documentation and prior approval requirement for categorical exch1slon 

for highway modernization 

Categorical exclusion in emergencies 

Early coordination activities in IHWifOnml'mtal review process 

Categorical exclusion for projects within the existing operational rlght·of-way' 

Eliminating tho documentation and prior approval requirement, for <:ategorical exclusion 

for bridge projects at railway-highway crossings 

Planning documents used in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) roview 

Use of federal highway or transit funds to support agencies par!iclpating in the environmental review process' 

Categorical Nclusion for projects with limited federal funds 

Reduce duplication by e!Jminat!ng df.!tai!ed consideration of alternative actions 

Categorical exclusion for geotechnical and archeo!oglcallnvestlgatlons 

Categoncal exclusion lor multimoda! projects 

Categom.:al exclusion for environmental restoration 

Categorical exclusion for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-Iunded ferry fac!llty 

rehabilitatton or reconstruction 

Categorical exclusion far FHWA-fundad ferry vessels 

Envtronmenta! documents for use among Department of Transportation administrations 

{)nsim1!arprojects 

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 52 

NumberofstBtes 

L__j Una,~are of prov1S!Of1 or ro respor>se 

or local 

19The Reduce Oup!tcatJOn ov !eHnHnaona 

prov1s1on authonzes the 

cons1derat1on an alternative 1n an EIS 

a plannmg process or state environmental rev1ew process 

Page 12 GA0-18-222 Highway and Translt Project Delivery 
68 


35944.042

0

"Categorical exclusion" means a category of act1ons that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and for which. therefore, neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required 

~The existing operational right..of-way refers to a strip of land that has been disturbed for an existing 

transportation facility or is maintained for transportation purposes. such as a highway, public footpath, 

or rail bed, landscaping, or rest areas with direct access to a controlled access highway. 

"Funds may be provided: for transportation planning ac!lvities that precede the initiation of the 

environmental review process. for dedicated staffing, for training of agency personnel, for infonnation 

gathering and mapping, and for development of programmatic agreements 

Some states reported that they have not used certain provisions and have 

no plans to do so. Our survey served as a nationwide review of the use of 

the provisions and was not designed to determine why each state did or 

did not use each provision. However. our discussions with selected states 

and optional comments provided in the survey provided some additional 

insight into states' use of the provisions. Officials at some state DOTs 

reported that they had not used certain categorical exclusions because 

other categorical exclusions could also apply to those projects. 

Specifically, officials in 4 state DOTs told us that they did not use 4 

categorical exclusion provisions for this reason. For example, officials at 

the Colorado DOT said that the Categorical Exclusion for Geotechnical 

and Archeological Investigations provision has not been used in Colorado 

because other categorical exclusions were more applicable. 20 Similarly, 

officials at the Oklahoma DOT said that they had not used the Categorical 

Exclusion for Projects within the Existing Operational Right-of-Way 

provision because most of those projects already qualify for a categorical 

exclusion under other criteria." For other provisions, such as the 

Categorical Exclusion for Multimodal Projects provision, some state 

DOTs, such as the Nebraska DOT, indicated that they do not conduct 

multimodal projects and have no plans to do so for the foreseeable 

future 22 

20The Categorical Exclusion for Geotechnical and Archeological Investigations provision 

for highway projects designates a categorical exclusion for geotechnical and archeolog1cat 

investigations to provide information for preliminary design 

21The Categon·cal Exclusion for Projects wHhin the Existing Operational Right-of-Way 

provision designates a project within an existing operational right-of-way as a categorical 

exclusion 

22The Cate_goncaf Exclusion for ~ultimodal Projects provision authori~es a D<?~ ope_rating 

admmistrat1on to apply a categonca! exc!us1on of another DOT operattng admm1stratlon to 

a multimodal project 

Page 13 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
69 


35944.043

Optional Provisions 

Reportedly Sped Up 

Highway Project Delivery 

for the Majority of Users 

For 11 of the 17 optional provisions included in our survey, a majority of 

state DOTs that indicated they used the provisions (users) reported that 

the provisions sped up project delivery (see fig, 2), 

Figure 2: Percentage of Departments of Transportation in 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico That Reported 

Various Effects of Used Optional Highway Project Delivery Provisions 

Optional project delivery provisiOns' 

Mmor lmoacts to protected public land 

Categorical exclusion for projects within the «lXisting operational right-of-wayb 

Use of federal highway or transit funds to support a.gondes participating in tha 

env1romnantal rev1ew process' 

Categoricalexclu:sioninemergencies 

Categorical excluSIOn for projects With limited federal funds 

Eliminating the documentatmn and pnor approval requirement for categorical 

exclusion for highway modernization 

Environmental documents for use among Department of ~·ransportatlon 

administrations on s1mi!ar projects 

Early coordination activitlos in environmental reviow process 

Planning documents used in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl review 

Reduce duplication by eliminating detailed consideration of alternative actions 

Eliminating the documentation and prior approval reqwrement for categorical 

exc!usionforhighwaysafety 

Eliminating the documentation and prior approval requirement for categoncat 

exclusion for bridge projects at railway-highway crossings 

Categorical exclusion for Federal Highway Administra_t!on_(FHWA)·funded ferry facility rehab1htatmn or reconstruction 

Categorical exclusion for FHWA-fundad ferry vessels 

Categorical exclusion for geotechnical and archeological investigations 

Categorical exclusion for mult!modal projects 

Page 14 

0 20 

Percentage of states 

40 

Number of states reportedly using provision ., 

60 100 

GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
70 


35944.044

"We define "optional" provisions to mean that the relevant entity {a federal agency or state or local 

transportation agency) can choose to use the provision if circumstances allow 

0

"Categorical exclusion" means a category of actiOns that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment, and for which, therefore. neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental impact statement is reqUired. The existing operational right-of·way 

refers to a strip of !and that has been disturbed for an existing transportation facility or is maintained 

for transportation purposes. such as a highway, public footpath, or rall bed, landscaping, or rest areas 

with direct access to a controlled access highway 

"Funds may be provided. for transportation planning activities that precede the initiation of the 

environmental review process, for dedicated staffing, for training of agency personnel, for informatJOn 

gathering and mapp1ng, and for development of programmatic agreements 

Over 90 percent of users of the Minor Impacts to Protected Public Land 

provision reported that it sped up project delivery ( 46 out of 50 state 

DOTs using the provision). FHWA officials said that without the Minor 

Impacts to Protected Public Land provision, a state DOT would need to 

complete an environmental assessment to show that performing even a 

small project, such as adding a small bus stop on the periphery of a park, 

would not have significant effects on the environment. 23 The Minor 

Impacts to Protected Public Land provision now allows a state DOT to 

complete transportation projects that have a minimal environmental effect 

on historic sites and parklands more quickly because the state DOT can 

bypass the environmental assessment process. In our survey and 

discussions with state DOTs, some officials noted how much time the 

provision can help them save. 24 Officials at the Virginia DOT estimated 

that a 9-month to 1-year review could be cut to 2 to 4 months." An official 

at the Colorado DOT said that reviews that used to take 6 months now 

take 30 days. And officials at the Mississippi DOT said that they used the 

provision when adding turn lanes near parks and were able to bypass a 

review process that previously took 6 to 12 months. 

Other examples of sped-up project delivery provided by state DOTs 

include the following: 

23Pnor to the enactment of this provis1on, we reported in May 2003 on stakeholders' views 

about aspects of the environmental review process that add time to the process for 

transportation projects. We found that 9 of 16 selected stakeholders reported that the 

statutory "4(f)" requirement protecting properties on histone sites an,d parkland was 

burdensome. GAO, Highway Infrastructure: Stakeholders' Views on Time to Conduct 

Environmental Reviews of Highway Projects, GA0-03-534 {Washington, O.C May 23, 

2003) 

24We gathered examp!es of the effects of the provisions, including time savings, both 

through the fo!!ow~up interviews we conducted with officials at 10 state DOTs and in the 

opt1ona! areas for comments included 1n the survey. 

25we did not independently verify state DOT officials' estimates of time savings. 

Page 15 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
71 


35944.045

Categorical Exclusion in Emergencies provision: Mississippi DOT 

officials said that this provision has been helpful, particularly given 

project delivery lessons learned since Hurricane Katrina. They said 

the provision allows the state DOT to use a categorical exclusion, 

which takes 6 to 8 months for some projects, in place of an 

environmental assessment, which can take 12 to 18 months and 

involves additional review steps such as providing evidence and 

analysis as to why a project does not require an EIS. 26 

Use of Federal Highway or Transit Funds to Support Agencies 

Participating in the Environmental Review Process provision: Arizona 

DOT officials said that the state DOT funds positions in the Army 

Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service that help lessen 

the time it takes for those agencies to provide comments on Arizona 

DOT project's NEPA reviews. The officials estimated these positions 

reduce review time by about one month compared to when these 

agencies did not have Arizona DOT-funded positions. 27 

For the remaining six optional provisions, 41 to 58 percent of users 

reported that the provisions had no effect on project delivery. Based on 

discussions with selected state DOTs and comments included with survey 

responses, officials at some state DOTs reported that the provisions did 

not have any effect because the states had already developed similar 

processes, either through programmatic agreements with their FHWA 

division office or at their own initiative. As a result, the state DOTs did not 

realize any new time savings after the provisions were enacted in law. For 

example, for each of three provisions that allow for certain documentation 

to be eliminated for categorical exclusions, officials at seven state DOTs 

reported that they had already developed similar processes through 

Categorical Exclusion in Emergencies provision designates the repair or 

reconstruction of any road, highway, or bridge that was damaged by an emergency as a 

categorical exclusion 

27The Use of Federal Highway or Transit Funds to Support Agencies Participating m the 

Environmental Review Process provision allows a public entity to use its federal highway 

or transit funds to support a federal or state agency or Indian tribe participating in the 

environmental review process on activities that directly contribute to expediting and 

improving project planning and delivery 

Pago 18 GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Dellvery 
72 


35944.141

tS'fmadd~ NO MORE VICTIMS 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving 

National Office 

madd.org 

1200 18th Street, NW 

Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20036 

January 23, 2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Senate Environment & Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Senate Environment & Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510-6175 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, 

877.ASK.MADD 

877.MADO.HELP victim support 

I write today on behalf of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in support of the Honorable Nicole Nason for the 

position of Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. 

Nicole has a long history of public service. As the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Nicole was a true leader of the highway safety community. MADD's Campaign to Eliminate Drunk 

Driving is our national and state priority for eliminating drunk driving in America. Nicole served as the first honorary 

chairman of our Campaign and was responsible for helping launch our initiatives to support law enforcement. ignition 

interlocks and new highway safety technologies. 

In addition to her leadership on drunk driving issues~ Nicole oversaw new seatbelt rules for school buses, 

rulemakings for electronic stability control systems and new car seat safety regulations. 

Following her tenure at NHTSA, Nicole served as a member of our national board of directors where she helped 

shape state and national policy positions for MADD. During this time, MADD achieved record gains for passing ignition 

interlock legislation across the country as well as working to codify our Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving as part of 

federal law. 

Currently, Nicole is once again serving our country as Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Administration at the 

U.S. Department of State. 

Nicole is a true champion of highway safety and will be an asset to the Department of Transportation as the 

Federal Highway Administration Administrator. On behalf of MADD. I wholeheartedly endorse her for this position. If 

you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact .J.T. Griffin, MADD's Chief Government Affairs Officer, at 202-

688-1193. 

Thank you and best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

Helen Witty 

National President. MADD 
73 


35944.046

Figure 3: Number of Departments of Transportation in 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico That Reported 

Various Effects of the Required Highway Project Delivery Provisions 

Required project delivery provisions• 

Programmatic agreements for efficient environmental review" 

150-daystatuteoflimitationsc 

Combine final environmental impact statement and record of decision in certain cases" 

Use single National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document 

Resolved issues are not reconsidered witho1,t significant new JnfDrmation 

Stakeholder agency comments in area of expertise 

Coordmation plan for public and agency part1c1patfon 

Procedures for inltlation of environmental review 

Programmatic mitigation plans used in NEPA revieW' 

Enhanced lechmcal assistance & accelerating project completlon1 

45-day limit to identify resource agencies 

Issue resolution process 

10 15 ::o 25 30 35 40 45 50 52 

Number of states 

I GA0-1$222 

'

1 fhere may be mstrmces 1n whiCh a combined document IS not the best ootion 

decide to use such pla11s. federal agenc1es must 

assistance. the Department of Transportation IS 

For 5 of the 12 provisions, between 10 and 18 states responded that the 

provisions sped up project delivery, For example, officials at the Ohio 

DOT estimated that the Combine Final Environmental impact Statement 

and Record of Decision in Certain Cases provision saves them a 

Page 18 GA0·18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
74 


35944.047

minimum of 3 months. For the remaining 6 provisions, between 4 and 7 

states reported that the provisions sped up project delivery, but each of 

these provisions also had at least 16 states that reported the provision 

had no effect on project delivery. Our survey served as a broad-based 

review of the effects of the provisions and was not designed to determine 

why each provision had the reported effects; however, some states 

provided voluntary comments in the survey. As with various optional 

provisions, some state DOT officials reported no effect because the state 

had already developed processes and practices that they said achieved 

what the provisions formalized, for example: 

Coordination Plan for Public and Agency Participation provision: In 

discussions and from optional comments, 4 state DOTs said that they 

already had a similar process in place. Officials at the Louisiana DOT 

stated that they performed a similar process prior to the 'Coordination 

Plan for Public and Agency Participation' provision's enactment in law 

in an effort to coordinate with the public and other government 

agencies. 30 

45-Day Limit to Identify Resource Agencies provision: In interviews 

and optional survey comments, officials at 2 state DOTs said that they 

already had a similar process in place to promptly identify stakeholder 

agencies." 

Issue Resolution Process provision: Wyoming DOT officials said that 

they had been performing a similar process prior to this provision's 

enactment in law to ensure consensus among stakeholders." 

Some state DOTs reported that it was too early to determine the effects of 

several provisions, particularly more recently enacted provisions. For 5 of 

the 12 required provisions, more than one third of state DOTs (over 17 

states) reported that it was too soon to judge the provisions' effects. Four 

of these 5 provisions were enacted in the FAST Act in 2015. 

Consequently, state DOTs that used the provision had a short window of 

30The Coordination Plan for Public and Agency Participation provision requires a 

coordination plan for public and agency participation in the environmental rev1ew process 

within 90 days of notice of intent or the initiation of an environmental assessment, 

including a schedule for completion of the environmental review process for the project 

31 The 45-Day Limit to Identify Resource Agencies provision establishes a 45-day limit 

after the notice of intent date for a lead agency to Identify other agencies to participate in 

the environmental review process on ElS projects 

32The Issue Resolution Process provision establishes procedures to resolve issues 

between state DOTs and relevant resource agencies 

Page 19 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Oelivery 
75 


35944.048

time to assess any potential effect on project delivery-particularly given 

that highway projects often take a number of years to complete. Also, 

while our survey did not ask state DOTs when they had most recently 

initiated an EIS, several state DOTs voluntarily noted that they had not 

done so since the FAST Act Certain provisions apply only to projects 

undergoing an EIS; states that have not done an EIS since such 

provisions were enacted would not have had the opportunity to use the 

provision. One such provision is the 45-Day Limit to Identify Resource 

Agencies provision, for which 19 state DOTs reported that it was too early 

to judge the effects. 

For 5 of the 12 provisions, a relatively few state DOTs, between one and 

eight, reported that the provision had slowed down project delivery. Eight 

states reported that the Coordination Plan for Public and Agency 

Participation provision slowed down project delivery, the most for any 

provision. According to the Minnesota DOT, this provision slowed down 

project delivery because it formalized and required a specific coordination 

process in addition to those that had already been voluntarily occurring 

with relevant federal and state resource agencies. Formalizing this 

process resulted in resource agencies taking longer to provide responses 

to the Minnesota DOT. Other states similarly said that this provision's 

additional formal processes slowed down project delivery. 

We defined required provisions to mean that federal agencies or state or 

local transportation agencies that are subject to the provision must 

adhere to requirements and obligations in the provision, if all the 

conditions for its use have been satisfied. States may not have had the 

opportunity to apply some of the required provisions that apply to them 

because they did not have exposure to the circumstances and conditions 

that would invoke this provision's use. For example, a state would not be 

exposed to the 150-Day Statute of Limitations provision if it had not been 

subject to a lawsuit 33 Unlike the optional provisions, we did not ask states 

whether they elected to use the required provisions since state DOTs, if 

150 Day Statute of Limitations provision bars claims seekmg JUdicial review of a 

permit, license. or approval 1ssued by a federal agency for h1ghway projects unless they 

are filed within 150 days after publication of a notice in the Federal Register announcing 

the final agency action, or unless a shorter t1me is specified m the federal law under which 

the judicial review is allowed 

Page 20 GA0~18~222 Highway and Translt Project Delivery 
76 


35944.049

Selected State DOTs 

Reported Using the Three 

Advance Planning 

Provisions That Affect 

Project Delivery but 

Precede NEPA Review 

subject to the provision, must adhere to the requirements and obligations 

in the provision. 34 

Two of the three provisions from the Advance Planning category were 

used by a majority of the 10 state DOTs we interviewed, and most of the 

state DOTs that used each provision stated that it sped up project 

delivery. This use is illustrated more specifically:" 

Advance Design-Build Contracting provision: 8 state DOTs used this 

provision, 5 of which reported it sped up highway project delivery. 36 

Advance Acquisition of Real Property provision: 6 state DOTs used 

this provision, 4 of which reported it sped up highway project 

delivery. 37 

2-phase Contracts provision: 5 state DOTs used this provision, 4 of 

which reported it sped up highway project delivery. 38 

Some state DOT officials provided examples of how the provisions 

affected their project delivery. For example, California DOT officials said 

that the Advance Acquisition of Real Property provision saved them a few 

months on small projects, involving one or two parcels of land; for a large 

project involving hundreds of commercial and residential parcels, they 

estimated time savings of more than a year. Similarly, Illinois DOT 

officials said that the provision has yielded time savings of 6 months to a 

year in instances where the DOT needs to purchase residential property. 

34Based on option a! comments from the survey, we found that states that had not had the 

opportunity to apply a required provision may have responded that the provision either 

had no effect or that it was too soon to judge its effect 

35We did not include provisions from the Advance Planning category in our survey 

because the primary survey respondents were not cognizant of these provis1ons, as they 

do not directly relate to the NEPA process 

36The Advance Design~Buifd Contracting provision permits states or local transportation 

agenc1es to release requests for proposals and award design~build contracts prior to the 

completion of the NEPA process. however 1t precludes a contractor from proceeding w1th 

final design or construction before completion of the NEPA process 

37The Advance Acquisition of Real Property provision authorizes states to acqu1re real 

property interests for a project before completion of the NEPA process 

38The 2~phase Contracts provision authorizes the awarding of 2~phase contracts 

(construction m.anage.r/ general co~~ractor) w~th preconstruction services an~ preliminary 

design of a project usmg a compet1t1ve selection process before the complet1on of the 

NEPA process 

Page 21 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
77 


35944.050

Most Project Delivery 

Provisions Were Used by 

Selected Transit Agencies, 

but the Provisions' Effects 

on Project Delivery Were 

Generally Unclear 

More than two-thirds of the provisions designed to speed up transit 

project delivery were reportedly used by 11 selected transit agencies. We 

asked officials in selected transit agencies to report their use of 29 project 

delivery provisions applicable to transit agencies, 17 of which are optional 

and 12 of which are required. 39 Of the 29 provisions, 6 were used by 4 or 

more selected transit agencies (see fig. 4). The most used optional 

provision, by 7 transit agencies, was the Minor Impacts to Protected 

Public Land provision described earlier followed by the Planning 

Documents Used in NEPA Review provision, used by 6 transit agencies. 

39Se!ected transit agencies may report not using a required provision because the 

conditions stated in the provision are not present, as we mentioned earlier. For example, 

the Issue Resolution Process provision. a required provision, is only requ1red when a 

dispute anses that cannot be resolved otherwise 

Page 22 GA0~18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
78 


35944.051

Figure 4; Number of 1 i Selected Transit Agencies That Reported Using Transit Project Delivery Provisions 

Optional project deHvery provisions• 

Planning do~:;umcnts used in National Environmental Minor Impacts PoHcy to prote'Cted Act {NEPA) public review land ~~§~~~~~~~:;::r:::J CatE<gorical exclusion for projects wlthln the existing operational right-of·way0 

Categorical excluSion for g.eotechnlcal and areheolog!ca! lnvest!g<~tlons 

Early coordination activities in environmental review process 

Categorical exclusion for minor rail re!!Hgnment 1::::::=:::::::-:::--=:-"--"J 

Categorical exclusion tor preventative maintenance to culverts and channels 

Environmental documents for use among Department of Transportation 

administrations on !.lmilar pr<Jjects 

Reduce duplication by eliminating detailed consideration of alternative actlons 

Categorical exclusion for multimoda! projects 

Categorical exclusion in emergencies 

Categorical exclusion for modernization of transit structures 

Use of federal highway or transit funds to support agencies participating In the 

environmental rev1ew process' 

Categorical exclusion for projects with limited federal funds 0 

Categorical exclusion for bridge removal o 

Required project delivery provislonsa 

Combine final enviromilental Jrnpact statement and rm::ord of dscislon in certain cases' 150-day statute of limitations• liiiiii'" Stakeholder agency comments in area of e)(pertise 

Coordination plan for public and agency pal'th'lipation 

Use single NEPA document 

45wday limit to Identify resource agencies 

Programmatic agreements for btflc!ent e1wironmental revio~ 

Programmatic mltlg<~t!on plans used in NEPA review" 0 

Procedures for inltiatlort of environmental review 0 

Issue res¢lution process 0 

Enhanced technical assistanca & accelerating project completion' 0 

Resolved Issues are not teconslder.ed withOut significant new information o 

0 1 2 3 4 

Number of tr.ansltagench;,s (out of 11 

10 11 

Page 23 GAOw'!8~222 H!ghway and Transit Projoct Delivery 
79 


35944.052

We define ~required" provisions to mean that federal agencies or state or local transportation 

agencies that are subject to a provision must adhere to the requirements and obligations in the 

provision, if all the conditions for its use have been satisfied. 

eThe provision bars judicial review of claims unless they are timely filed. 

1

There may be instances in which a combined document is not the best option. 

g~Programmatic agreements~ are agreements between state departments of transportai!On and their 

Federal Highway Administration division office on processes and procedures to carry out 

environmental reviews and other required project reviews. 

hOnce states or metropolitan planning organizations decide to use such plans federal agencies must give substantial weight to the plans 

'Once a project sponsor or governor requests assistance, the Department of Transportation is 

required to provide it. 

Some transit agencies told us that the provisions they used sped up 

project delivery. In addition, some provided estimated time savings 40 

Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) officials told us that the Minor 

Impacts to Protected Public Land provision was extremely helpful for 

recent CT A projects involving historic properties. For example, CT A 

has implemented projects that involve track work at a station that is 

adjacent to a historic boulevard. They estimated that the Minor 

Impacts to Protected Public Land provision has reduced the time to 

complete documentation by several months. Similarly, a Tri-County 

Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon official stated the Minor 

Impacts to Protected Public Land provision has been instrumental 

since in the past, the agency would have to stop the project if it 

affected a park land. 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) officials 

told us that they used the Categorical Exclusion for Minor Rail 

Realignment provision one or two times within the past 2 years. 

SEPTA estimated the provision saved the agency several months in 

time savings per project Officials stated that the provision allowed the 

SEPTA to use a categorical exclusion in place of an environment 

assessment SEPTA officials also said they saved staff time and 

approximately $100,000 a year in consultant fees and agency staff 

resources by using the Categorical Exclusion for Preventative 

Maintenance to Culverts and Channels provision. 

Capital Metro officials in Austin, Texas, told us they used the 

Categorical Exclusion for Projects within the Existing Operational 

Right-of-Way provision for a rail right-of-way project They estimated 

the provision helped save at least 4 to 6 months in project delivery 

not verify transit agencles' cost savings estimates resulting from the provisions. 

Page 24 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
80 


35944.053

because the agency was not required to do an environmental 

assessment 

While some selected transit agencies reported using some provisions and 

added that this provision's use helped speed up project delivery or lower 

costs, the effects of the provisions-whether they sped up project delivery 

or streamlined the NEPA review process-were not clear to a majority of 

the selected transit agencies. Because transit agencies in our review do 

not track NEPA reviews-including their start and end dates-they were 

not able to assess how project time frames or costs were affected by the 

provisions. Officials from several selected transit agencies told us that 

their understanding of the project delivery provisions' effects was also 

limited by their reliance on engineering and environmental-planning 

consultants to prepare their NEPA documents. Officials from 4 of the 11 

transit agencies told us that they rely on these consultants' knowledge of 

the provisions to prepare their NEPA documents. Further, officials from 1 

transit agency said they required the assistance of their consultants to 

respond to our requests for information. 

Nine of the 29 provisions were not used by any of the agencies, and no 

provision was used by more than 7 agencies. Our discussions with 

selected transit agency and FT A officials provided some insight into 

transit agencies' use of the provisions, specifically: 

Limited transit projects needing E/Ss: Transit agencies that do not 

prepare EISs may have fewer opportunities to use some of the 

provisions. Following discussions with FTA officials, we examined the 

number of times transit agencies filed a notice of intent to prepare an 

EIS in the Federal Register from 2005 through 2016 as a proxy to 

identify those transit agencies that would likely use a number of the 

project delivery provisions. 41 We found that 48 transit agencies (out of 

several hundreds of transit agencies) filed notices of intent from fiscal 

year 2005 through 2016 but that of the 48 transit agencies, 34 had 

filed a notice of intent only once during that time. In general, the vast 

majority of transit agencies have little recent experience preparing EIS 

documentation and using the provisions that are triggered by an 

41 FT A, as the lead federal agency, starts the EIS process by publishing a nottce of intent 

in the Federal Register on behalf of the local transit agency. We used this approach 

because transit agencies that have prepared EIS documents would likely have experience 

and insight into environmental act1ons broadly speaking, however, we recogn1ze that 

some transit agencies may have less experience with EIS provisions and more experience 

using other proviSIOns related to categonca! exclusions 

Page 25 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
81 


35944.054

EIS'' For example, only one transit agency (Tri-County Metropolitan 

Transportation District of Oregon) had filed a notice of intent to 

prepare an EIS after the FAST Act was enacted in 2015. 

Duration of transit projects: Some instances where transit project 

delivery provisions were not used could be due to the number of years 

it takes to complete transit projects. According to FT A officials, where 

sponsors for highway projects may have new projects initiating and 

requiring NEPA reviews on a rolling basis, transit agencies operate 

differently. A transit agency may have a project that goes through a 

NEPA review and then begins construction of the project that can last 

a number of years. The transit agency may not have another project 

that requires an EIS for several years. For example, New York 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), the largest transit 

agency by ridership in the country, completed its last EIS review in 

2004 and has since been working on construction of that project. 

according to FT A officials. While MT A has been receiving FTA funds 

for construction, no additional project has undergone an EIS. 

Changing provisions and delayed guidance: Some transit agency 

officials told us that the changing provisions across the three enacted 

surface transportation authorization acts pose challenges to using the 

project delivery provisions. Understanding the changes in the project 

delivery provisions-for example, changes in categorical exclusionsincluded in SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21, and the FAST Act was 

challenging according to some selected transit agencies. Further, 

some transit agency officials stated that the lag time in receiving 

guidance from FT A on the changing provisions also posed challenges 

to using some of the provisions. 

agencies filed a notice of intent two t1mes between these years and four agencies 

filed a notice of intent three or more times between these years 

Page 26 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
82 


35944.055

DOT's FHWA Has 

Assigned Six States 

NEPAAuthority, and 

Two States Reported 

Time Savings, but 

FHWAHas Not 

Provided Guidance 

on Measuring Effects 

FHWA Has Assigned Six 

States NEPAAuthority, 

and Additional States Are 

Interested 

DOT, specifically FHWA, has assigned its NEPA approval authority to six 

states, and other states are interested in this authority. Of the six states, 

California and Texas have completed some NEPA reviews and 

determined they have achieved time savings through state approval of 

NEPA documents rather than federal approvaL However, we found the 

reported time savings to be questionable for several reasons, including 

challenges faced by California and Texas in establishing sound baselines 

for comparison. Despite this finding, the reported time-savings information 

is used by other states to seek out NEPA authority and in reporting to 

DOT and Congress. FHWA focuses its oversight of NEPA assignment 

states on ensuring these states have the processes in place to carry out 

FHWA's NEPA responsibilities, according to a written agreement between 

each state and FHWA, and does not focus on determining whether states 

are achieving time savings. 

FHWA has assigned its NEPA authority to six states, enabling those state 

DOTs to assume FHWA's authority and approve state-prepared NEPA 

documentation for highway projects, in lieu of seeking federal approvaL 43 

California's NEPA authority began in 2007, as the first state in the thenpilot program, and continued when the program was made permanent in 

2012. Once eligibility expanded to all states, Texas became the second 

state to be assigned NEPA authority, in 2014, followed more recently by 

Ohio in 2015. Florida in 2016, and Utah and Alaska in 2017'4 

The 2005 Conference Report accompanying SAFETEA-LU indicates that 

the NEPA Assignment Authority provision was created to achieve more 

efficient and timely environmental reviews, which are a key benefit sought 

by participating states. The report states that the NEPA assignment 

program was initially created as a pilot program to provide information to 

Congress and the public as to whether delegation of DOT's 

environmental review responsibilities resulted in more efficient 

43The NEPA Assignment Authority provision authorizes FHWA to do thts. As discussed 

above, another provision-the Categorical Exclusion Determination Authority provisionauthorized FHWA to assign and a state to assume responsibility for determining if projects 

can be categoncally excluded from NEPA review. Three states currently have assumed 

this authority-Alaska, Califomia, and Utah. According to FTA officials, no state has 

assumed FTA's NEPA authority for document approval on transit projects 

44We did not include Alaska in our review because it did not assume NEPA authority until 

November 2017 

Page 27 GA0*18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
83 


35944.056

environmental reviews'' In addition, in MAP-21, Congress declared that 

it is in the national interest to expedite the delivery of surface 

transportation projects by substantially reducing the average length of the 

environmental review process. 46 State DOT officials from the five NEPA 

assignment states we reviewed cited anticipated time savings or greater 

efficiency in environmental review as a reason for taking on this authority. 

For example, Texas DOT officials said they expected to save time by 

eliminating FHWA approval processes that they described as time 

consuming. With NEPA authority, the state puts in place its own approval 

processes to carry out the federal government's NEPA review 

responsibilities, and agrees to take on the risk of legal liability for 

decisions made in this capacity. 

Additional states have expressed interest and have taken steps to apply 

for NEPA authority. Officials from three state DOTs told us they plan to 

apply for NEPA authority, and one of these, the Arizona DOT, has taken 

the first step in the process and obtained the requisite changes in state 

law.'7 In explaining the anticipated benefits of NEPA assignment to the 

state legislature, an Arizona DOT official cited time savings reported by 

California and Texas as a reason for taking on the application process. 

Time savings' results had been shared by California and Texas DOT 

officials during a peer exchange event held by an association of state 

highway officials in 2015 for states that are in the early stages or are 

considering applying for NEPA authority. Also, the Texas DOT had 

testified before a congressional committee in 2015 and described the time 

savings for environmental assessment reviews under its NEPA authority 

and its role communicating this information to other states pursuing NEPA 

authority. 48 

Rep. No. 109-203, at 1053 (2005) 

46Pub. L. No 114-121, § 1301(c). 126 Stat 405,528, codified at 23 U.S.C. § 101(b)(4) 

47The Nebraska and Puerto Rico DOTs are also considering applying, according to 

officials in those states. States must, among other things, authorize a limited waiver of 

their sovereign immunity under the 11th amendment of the U.S. Constitution and consent 

to accepting the jurisdiction of the federal courts as a condition of assuming NEPA 

authority 

48The Texas DOT testified before the House Oversight Committee on MAP·21 (Dec. 8, 

2015) 

Page 28 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
84 


35944.057

State DOTs Calculate 

Time Savings, but 

Reported Savings Are 

Questionable 

The MOUs, signed with FHWA by each of the five states we reviewed, set 

out performance measures for comparing the time of completion for 

NEPA approvals before and after the assumption of NEPA responsibilities 

by the states. To calculate time savings, each state has established a 

baseline-of the time it took to complete NEPA review before it assumed 

NEPA authority-to compare to the time it takes to complete NEPA 

review after assuming NEPA authority. The baseline is to serve as a key 

reference point in determining the efficiency of state-led NEPA reviews. 

Thus far, the two states that have had NEPA authority long enough to 

report results are California and Texas, and only California has reported 

results for EISs. The California DOT reported that its EIS reviews now 

take about 6 years to approve, which it determined to be a 1 0-year 

improvement over the 16-year (15.9 years) baseline the state DOT 

established. For environmental assessment reviews, the California DOT 

reported completion times of about 3.5 years, which it determined to be a 

1-year improvement over the established baseline. The Texas DOT has 

not started and completed an EIS review since assuming NEPA authority 

but reported that its environmental assessment reviews have taken about 

1.5 years, compared to the baseline of almost 2.5 years. 

However, we found California and Texas DOTs' reported time savings to 

be questionable due to the methods used to compare time frames and 

challenges associated with establishing baselines. First, there is an 

inherent weakness in comparing the NEPA review time frames before 

and after NEPA authority because the comparison does not isolate the 

effect of assuming NEPA authority on NEPA review time frames from 

other possible factors. As discussed earlier, we have previously found 

that such factors include the extent of public opposition to a project and 

changes in transportation priorities, among other factors. 49 Further, 

according to a report from the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials, such a comparison does not include 

information to control for non-environmental factors that are important to 

project delivery time frames, including delay in completion of design work 

necessary to advance the environmental review and changes in project 

funding that put a project on hold. 50 Moreover, neither California nor 

Texas DOTs' time frame comparisons isolate the effects of NEPA 

49GA0-12-593 

50 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Lessons Learned 

from State DOT NEPA Assignment(May 2016) 

Page 29 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
85 


35944.058

assignment from other streamlining initiatives that may have helped 

accelerate delivery of projects, such as potential benefits realized from 

other project delivery provisions. 

Second, California and Texas have faced challenges creating appropriate 

baselines. States are responsible for determining how many and which 

projects to include in baseline calculations and adopting their own 

methodologies. While circumstances and conditions are different across 

states and states can be expected to have different experiences, 

California's current 16-year EIS baseline is over double that of Texas' EIS 

baseline. 51 In 2012, we found that for the 32 projects in which FHWA was 

the lead agency and signed the EIS in fiscal year 2009, the average time 

to complete the process was about 7 years. 52 According to information 

contained in California DOT reports to the state legislature from 2007 and 

2009, California's original baseline for EISs was comprised of 1 project 

that resulted in an EIS baseline of 2.5 years 5 3 In 2009 state DOT officials 

increased the number of EIS projects in order to achieve what they 

viewed as a more representative mix. This process increased California's 

EIS baseline six-fold, which has been consistently used since that time. 

Specifically, California used the median of five projects that had review 

times of around 2.5 years, 6.2 years, 15.9 years, 16.6 years, and 17.3 

years. These projects were selected because they were among the final 

EIS projects that were reviewed prior to California's assuming NEPA 

authority. 

However, the EIS baseline may not be meaningful. First, it includes outlier 

projects, which are projects that take much longer than usual to complete. 

According to California DOT officials, this factor is a limitation to 

determining time savings because the outliers increased the EIS baseline 

and therefore makes subsequent time savings look greater than they are. 

Next, despite the increase in EIS projects included in the baseline, a 2016 

California DOT report to the state legislature stated that this new EIS 

baseline may still not be meaningful because of the relatively small 

sample size, and therefore the inferences that can be made from EIS 

other NEPA assignment states have not publicly reported EIS baselines 

52GA0-12-593 

53California Department of Transportation, Report to the California Legislature Pursuant to 

Section 820.1 of the California Streets and Highways Code (November 2007): and 

California Department of Transportation, Second Report to the California Legislature 

Pursuant to Section 820.1 of the California Streets and Highways Code (Jan. 1, 2009) 

Page 30 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
86 


35944.059

analysis on time savings are limited. 54 The report caveats that "the EIS 

analysis should not be used as a major indicator of the effectiveness of 

NEPA assignment," but still reports the EIS analysis results. However, 

California DOT uses the figure in determining and reporting time savings. 

For example, information available on the California DOT's web site as of 

November 2017 presents these data and states that they are evidence of 

saving "significant time in reviewing and approving its NEPA documents 

since undertaking NEPA assignment." 55 

Moreover, the California DOT's reported median time frame of 6 years for 

EIS reviews only accounts for those projects that have both started and 

completed their environmental review since the state assumed NEPA 

authority. As only 10 years have passed since California assumed NEPA 

authority in 2007, all EIS reviews started and completed since 2007 

automatically have shorter time frames than the 16-year baseline. Thus, it 

will be 2023 before any EIS reviews in California could equal the 

baseline, let alone exceed it, making any EIS review started after 

assumption of NEPA authority and completed before 2023 appear to 

demonstrate time savings. 

Texas DOT officials stated that they had challenges determining a 

baseline for environmental assessments because there is no nationally 

accepted standard definition of when an environmental assessment 

begins. Moreover, Texas DOT recently revised its environmental 

assessment baseline. reducing it from 3 years to 2.5 years and including 

projects over a 2-year period instead of a longer 3-year period due to 

uncertainties with quality of the older data, according to Texas DOT 

officials. Texas also included, then excluded three outliers from its revised 

baseline (reviews that took between 6 and 9 years to complete) because 

officials determined they were not representative of typical environmental 

assessment reviews. While improving project data to create more 

accurate baselines is beneficial, it also results in different time savings' 

estimates over time and illustrates the challenges of constructing sound 

baselines. 

54California Department of Transportation, 2016 Report to the Legislature, NEPA 

Assignment.· July 2007-June 2014 (Jan. 1, 2016). 

55Cahfomia Department of Transportation, Cattrans NEPA Assignment Fact Sheet 

(October 2017) 

Page 31 GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
87 


35944.060

FHWA Has Focused on 

States' Compliance and 

Processes but Has Played 

a Limited Role in Time 

Savings Measures 

As previously discussed, states that are considering or have recently 

decided to assume NEPA assignment authority have relied, at least in 

part, on time savings reported by California and Texas. As additional 

NEPA assignment states begin calculating and reporting time savings as 

outlined in their MOUs with FHWA, the inherent weakness of a pre- and 

post-assignment baseline comparison, combined with challenges 

establishing sound baselines, creates the potential for questionable 

information about the program's effects to be reported and relied upon by 

other states considering applying for NEPA assignment. Questionable 

information also negatively affects DOT's and Congress' ability to 

determine whether NEPA assignment is having its intended effect and 

resulting in more efficient environmental reviews. 

FHWA focuses its oversight of NEPA assignment states through audits 

and monitoring to ensure that states have the processes in place to carry 

out FHWA's role in the NEPA process and that they comply with the MOU 

agreed to between FHWA and each of the NEPA assignment states. 

According to the MOUs, FHWA's annual audits include evaluating the 

attainment of performance measures contained in each MOU. Each of the 

five MOUs contains four performance measures including: (1) 

documenting compliance with NEPA and other federal laws and 

regulations, (2) maintaining internal quality control and assurance 

measures for NEPA decisions including legal reviews, (3) fostering 

communication with other agencies and the general public, and ( 4) 

documenting efficiency and timeliness in the NEPA process by comparing 

the completion of NEPA documents and approvals before and after NEPA 

assignment. 

According to FHWA officials, the agency interprets evaluating the 

attainment of performance measures contained in the MOU as ensuring 

that the state has a process in place to assess attainment. For the 

efficiency and timeliness measures, FHWA does not use its audits to 

measure whether the state is achieving performance goals. FHWA only 

ensures that the state has a process in place to track the completion of 

NEPA documents and approvals before and after NEPA assignment, and 

that states follow the process, according to FHWA officials. For example, 

FHWA officials from the California division office stated that they did not 

assess the baseline methodology or assess its validity or accuracy. 

FHWA's Texas division officials added that setting the baseline has not 

been an FHWA role. FHWA does not assess or collect information on 

states' calculations of their time savings from NEPA assignment. 

Page 32 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
88 


35944.061

FHWA officials stated that their focused approach on compliance and 

processes is consistent with the authority they have been granted and 

that it is not required by statute to measure environmental review 

efficiency and timeliness performance of participating states. Moreover, 

according to these officials, this authority limits their ability to request 

state information on issues related to, and otherwise assess, states' 

performance measures, including time savings, specifically: 

According to an FHWA program document, FHWA is statutorily 

authorized to require the state to provide any information that FHWA 

reasonably considers necessary to ensure that the state is adequately 

carrying out the responsibilities assigned to the state. 56 Further, a 

request for information is reasonable if it pertains to FHWA's 

reviewing the performance of the state in assuming NEPA assignment 

responsibilities. However, FHWA officials told us they do not consider 

an assessment of efficiency and timeliness measures to be necessary 

to ensure that the state is adequately carrying out its responsibilities. 

Additionally, FHWA considers timeliness performance measures to be 

a state role. FHWA officials told us that the timeliness performance 

measures in the NEPA assignment MOUs were added by the states, 

not FHWA For instance, California added a timeliness performance 

measure based on its state legislature's reporting requirements. Each 

of the subsequent four NEPA assignment states we reviewed also 

included timeliness performance measures in their respective MOUs. 

However, the DOT Office of Inspector General reported in 2017 that 

while FHWA is not statutorily required to measure performance 

regarding the environmental review process for NEPA assignment 

states, the lack of data collection and tracking inhibits FHWA's ability 

to measure the effectiveness of NEPA assignment in accelerating 

project delivery. 57 The DOT Office of Inspector General recommended 

that FHWA develop and implement an oversight mechanism to 

periodically evaluate the performance of NEPA assignment states, 

which has not yet been implemented. 

While FHWA does not, according to officials, have the authority to assess 

states' measurement of timeliness performance, FHWA has a role and 

the authority to provide guidance or technical assistance to states to help 

find solutions to particular problems and to ensure complete and quality 

5623 U.S C. § 327(c)(4). 

57 DOT Office of Inspector General, Vulnerabilities Exist in Implementing Initiatives Under 

MAP-21 Subtitle C to Accelerate Project Delivery (ST2017029) (Mar. 6, 2017) 

Page 33 GA0~18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
89 


35944.062

information is provided to Congress, state DOTs, and the public to help 

make informed policy choices. Federal standards for internal control state 

that agencies should use quality information to determine the extent to 

which they are achieving their intended program outcomes. 58 

Characteristics of quality information include complete, appropriate, and 

accurate information that helps management make informed decisions 

and evaluate the entity's performance in achieving strategic outcomes. 

FHWA's mission to advance the federal-aid highway program is 

articulated in its national leadership strategic goal, which states that 

FHWA "leads in developing and advocating solutions to national 

transportation needs." To carry out its mission, FHWA engages in a range 

of activities to assist state DOTs in guiding projects through construction 

to improve the highway system. Specifically, according to agency 

documents, FHWA provides technical assistance and training to state 

DOTs and works with states to identify issues and develop and advocate 

solutions. Its broad authority to offer guidance and technical assistance 

can include helping states develop sound program methodologies. Such 

assistance or guidance could also include sharing best practices and 

lessons learned on evaluation methodologies, including creation of 

baselines, and potentially result in better quality information to assess the 

results of NEPA assignment. Without quality information reported from 

NEPA assignment states on time savings, questionable information about 

the program effects may be relied upon by other states considering 

applying for NEPA authority, and may negatively impact DOT's and 

Congress' ability to determine whether NEPA assignment is having its 

intended effect and resulting in more efficient environmental reviews. 

FHWA officials stated that they advise NEPA assignment states on 

process improvements and technical assistance, but that no state has 

requested assistance developing evaluation methodologies or baselines. 

However, offering guidance or technical assistance on evaluation 

methodologies to measure time savings can help ensure that states are 

basing decisions to participate on reliable information and that, in turn, 

those NEPA assignment states can provide reliable information to FHWA 

and Congress to help assess whether NEPA assignment results in more 

efficient environmental reviews. 

Page 34 GA0·18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
90 


35944.063

Conclusions 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

A number of factors can affect the time it takes to complete highway and 

transit projects, including the NEPA review process. Congress has stated 

that it is in the national interest to expedite the delivery of surface 

transportation projects by substantially reducing the average length of the 

environmental review process, and has taken a number of steps in this 

direction, including allowing DOT to assign NEPA authority to the states. 

We found that the time savings results publicly shared by current NEPA 

assignment states have spurred interest among other states seeking 

NEPA authority. However, states are making program decisions-taking 

on risk and assuming federal authority-based on questionable 

information and reports of success. 

Given questions about participating states' reported time savings, FHWA 

can help provide some assurance that the performance measures states 

develop and use to report out are based on sound methodologies. FHWA 

has the authority to issue program guidance and offer and provide 

technical assistance to help state DOTs find solutions to particular 

problems, including the development of sound evaluation methodologies. 

Without such assistance, states may continue to face difficulties 

establishing sound baselines. And without a sound baseline, the time 

savings states calculate-which may continue to be subsequently publicly 

reported-may be of questionable accuracy and value. And Congress, in 

turn, would not have reliable information on whether the assignment of 

NEPA authority to states is having its intended effect 

The FHWA Administrator should offer and provide guidance or technical 

assistance to NEPA assignment states on developing evaluation 

methodologies, including baseline time frames and timeliness measures. 

(Recommendation 1) 

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. DOT 

provided a written response (see app. VI), as well as technical comments, 

which we incorporated as appropriate. DOT partially concurred with our 

recommendation. Specifically, DOT stated that it would clarify 

environmental review start times and communicate this to all FHWA 

Page 35 GA0~18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
91 


35944.064

divisions and states. DOT also stated it would provide the NEPA 

assignment states with any new federal government-wide guidance 

developed on performance measures of environmental reviews. DOT also 

stated that it already provides technical assistance to NEPA assignment 

states in other areas and that FHWA is not required by statute to measure 

the environmental review efficiency and timeliness of NEPA assignment 

states. Further, DOT stated that focusing only on timeliness metrics for 

environmental reviews overlooks other significant benefits of NEPA 

assignment, such as state control over when and how to conduct 

environmental reviews, which according to DOT is one of the most 

significant factors that a state considers in deciding whether to request 

NEPA assignment authority. 

We are encouraged that DOT stated it would clarify environmental review 

start times. This step can improve the accuracy of environmental 

assessment review time frames, which is a part of developing sound 

baselines. In addition, while providing general guidance related to 

performance measures of environmental reviews would be helpful, we 

continue to believe that FHWA needs to provide further guidance or 

technical assistaRce to NEPA assignment states on developing sound 

evaluation methodologies. We recognize that FHWA has stated that it is 

not required by statute to measure environmental review efficiency; 

however, FHWA does have broad authority to offer guidance and 

technical assistance to help states develop sound program 

methodologies, including sharing practices and lessons learned on 

evaluation methodologies. As we reported, Congress indicated its interest 

in more efficient and timely environmental reviews when it created the 

NEPA assignment program. FHWA can help provide reasonable 

assurance that the performance measures states develop and use to 

report information are based on sound methodologies, which would in 

turn help provide Congress reliable information on whether the 

assignment of NEPA authority to states is having its intended effect. 

Further, while we acknowledge that other benefits of NEPA assignment 

may be important to states, all the NEPA assignment states we reviewed 

consistently identified time savings as a reason for taking on this 

authority. Offering guidance on evaluation methodologies to measure 

time savings can help FHWA ensure that additional states interested in 

NEPA authority for this reason are basing decisions to participate on 

reliable information. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. and other 

Page 36 GA0·18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
92 


35944.065

interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on 

GAO's website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202} 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix VII. 

Susan Fleming 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 37 GA0~18~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
93 


35944.066

Appendix 1: Available Information about the 

Number, Percentage, and Costs of NEPA 

Reviews for Highway and Transit Projects 

Highway Projects 

Based on 2009 data, we previously reported that 96 percent of 

environmental reviews are completed through categorical exclusions and 

a smaller number of highway projects undergo EISs and environmental 

assessments, 1 and 3 percent respectively. 1 We have previously reported 

that government-wide data on the cost of NEPA reviews are not readily 

available because agencies do not routinely track the cost of completing 

NEPA reviews and there is no government-wide mechanism to do so.' To 

comply with congressional reporting requirements, FHWA maintains the 

Project and Program Action Information (PAPAl) system, which is a 

monitoring database that tracks projects' NEPA review progress at major 

milestones. FHWA developed PAPAl in 2013 in response to statutory 

reporting requirements on NEPA time frames. PAPAl tracks EIS and 

environmental assessment start and end dates, among other information, 

allowing FHWA to track the processing time for these reviews. FTA does 

not have a similar monitoring system that tracks NEPA reviews, but has 

developed a new grant management system, the Transit Award 

Management System (TrAMS), which FTA also uses to track EIS and 

environmental assessment start and end dates. However, FT A officials 

told us that TrAMS is still in the early phases of deployment and may 

contain incomplete information on NEPA time frames on transit projects. 

While some information is available on the number of NEPA reviews (i.e., 

NEPA review time frames) for highway projects, little to no information is 

known about the percentage breakdown of the three types of NEPA 

reviews that have been conducted for these projects and their associated 

costs. 

Number of NEPA Reviews: Some information is available regarding 

the number of EIS and environmental assessments; however, less is 

known about the number of categorical exclusions. In an October 

2017 report to Congress, FHWA stated that 29 EISs were initiated 

since 2012, of which 3 EISs were completed and 26 EISs remain 

active. 3 In its October 2013 report to Congress and consistent with 

1

GAO, Highway Projects: Some Federal and State Projects to Expedite Compfetton Show 

Progress, GA0-12-593 (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2012). 

2

GAO, National Environmental Policy Act: Little Information Exists on NEPA Analyses. 

GA0-14-369 (Washington, D.C.: Apri115, 2014) 

3

FHWA, Report to Congress· Review of Federal Project and Program Delivery Completion 

Time Assessments 0/1/ashington. D.C.: October 2017) 

Page 38 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
94 


35944.067

Appendix I; Available Information about the 

Number, Percentage, and Costs of NEPA 

Reviews for Highway and Transit Projects 

MAP-21 reporting requirements, FHWA reported the number of EISs 

that state DOTs "initiated" from 2002 through 2012. In this report, 

FHWA stated that the number of EISs that initiated decreased over 

time.' For example, FHWA reported that 38 EISs were initiated in 

fiscal year 2002 compared to 15 EISs that were initiated in 2012. 5 

Regarding the number of environmental assessments state DOTs 

conduct for highway projects, FHWA's October 2017 report to 

Congress stated 232 environmental assessments were initiated since 

2012, of which 103 environmental assessments were completed and 

129 environmental assessments remain active. FHWA's October 

2013 report to Congress did not report on the number of 

environmental assessments. FHWA officials told us that prior to fiscal 

year 2013, FHWA division offices were not required to submit data on 

environmental assessments. 

While some information on categorical exclusions exists, the total 

number of categorical exclusions is unknown. FHWA does not actively 

track categorical exclusions because state DOTs process most 

categorical exclusions without involvement from FHWA, as allowed by 

established programmatic agreements. 6 

Percentage of NEPA Reviews by Type: The percentage breakdown of 

EIS, environmental assessments, and categorical exclusions 

conducted by state DOTs for federal-aid highway projects is largely 

unknown since FHWA has systematically collected numerical data 

only on EIS reviews and environmental assessments since fiscal year 

2013. We previously reported that, FHWA estimated that 

approximately 96 percent of NEPA reviews were categorical 

exclusions, 3 percent were environmental assessments, and 1 

percent were EISs. 7 While the current percentage breakdown of 

NEPA reviews is not known, FHWA officials told us that categorical 

exclusions still constitute the vast majority of NEPA reviews for 

highway projects. Furthermore, highway projects requiring an EIS 

4FHWA, Report to Congress: MAP-21 Review of Federal Project and Program Oe/Jvery 

Completion Time Assessments (Washington, D.C.: Oct 1, 2013) 

5MAP-21 required FHWA to report on the number of EIS reviews that were "initiated ··each 

year 

61n an October 2017 report to Congress, FHWA collected states' data and sampled more 

than 8,000 categorical exclustons, of which approximately 5, 700 were initiated smce 2012 

7GA0-12-593 

Page 39 GA0~18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
95 


35944.068

Transit Projects 

Appendix 1: Available Information about the 

Number, Percentage, and Costs of NEPA 

R~v!ews for Highway and Transit Projects 

likely remain the smallest portion of all projects and are likely to be 

high-profile, complex, and expensive. 

Costs of NEPA Reviews: The costs of completing NEPA reviews are 

unknown according to officials we interviewed. Officials from FHWA 

and the National Association of Environmental Professionals believe 

that data on the cost of processing NEPA reviews do not exist and are 

not tracked. In our survey of state DOTs, we found that a majority (37 

of the 52 state DOTs surveyed) do not collect cost data. For example, 

officials from Virginia DOT stated that they do not track NEPA costs 

and that compiling this information would be difficult and laborintensive. 

Number and Percentage of NEPA Reviews: FT A has some data on 

the number of categorical exclusions that transit agencies process, 

but has just begun to collect data on the number of EIS reviews or 

environmental assessments. According to an August 2016 report, 

FTA reported that 24,426 categorical exclusions were processed for 

6,804 projects between February 2013 and September 2015. 8 

However, the same report cited a number of limitations and 

challenges with the underlying data, and as a result, the data may not 

be accurate. FTA officials told us that its new internal grant 

management system, TrAMS, also has the capability to track EIS 

reviews and environment assessments. but they are in the early 

stages of collecting this information. Given that data on the number of 

NEPA reviews are either not available (EIS and environmental 

assessments) or potentially unreliable (categorical exclusions), data 

on the percentage of NEPA reviews are also not available. However, 

FT A officials believe that similar to highway projects, the most 

common type of NEPA reviews that transit agencies process are 

categorical exclusions. 

Costs of NEPA Reviews: FT A and transit agencies do not track costs 

of processing NEPA reviews for transit projects. According to FTA and 

our previously issued work, separating out the costs for NEPA reviews 

(versus "planning" costs or "preliminary design" costs) within the 

project delivery process would be difficult to determine.' 

8

Volpe Nation a! Transportation Systems Center. Federal Transit Administration 

Categorical Exclusion Audit Synthesis Report (Cambridge, MA: August 2016) 

'GA0-14-369. 

Page 40 GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
96 


35944.069

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Our work focused on federal-aid highway and transit projects and the 

provisions included in the past three surface transportation 

reauthorizations that are intended to accelerate the delivery of such 

projects (i.e., project delivery provisions). In particular, this report: (1) 

identifies the provisions aimed at accelerating the delivery of highway and 

transit projects that were included in the last three surface transportation 

reauthorizations; (2) examines the extent to which the provisions were 

used by state departments of transportation (state DOT) and transit 

agencies and the provisions' reported effects, if any, on accelerating the 

delivery of projects; and (3) evaluates the extent to which DOT has 

assigned National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) authority to 

states and the reported effects. In addition, in appendix I, we identify 

available information on the number and percentage of the different types 

of NEPA reviews, and costs of conducting NEPA reviews. 

To identify all relevant project delivery provisions, we reviewed language 

in the three most recent surface transportation reauthorizations and 

included those provisions with the goal to accelerate the delivery of 

federal-aid highway or transit projects. The three reauthorizations we 

reviewed are as follows: 

the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)-the seven project delivery 

provisions we used were derived from provisions we had previously 

identified from SAFETEA-LU, Title VI, on Transportation Planning and 

Project Delivery;' 

the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21 ), 

Division A, Title 1, Subtitle C, entitled Acceleration of Project Delivery 

(Sections 1301 through 1323); and 

the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Division 

A, Title 1, Subtitle C, entitled Acceleration of Project Delivery 

(Sections 1301 through 1318). 

One provision (MAP-21 §1318(a)-(c)) included statutory language 

directing the Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop additional 

project delivery provisions through rulemaking. Accordingly, we reviewed 

the DOT regulations promulgated in response to that requirement (23 

C.F.R. §§ 771.117(c)(24)-(30), 771.118(c)(14)-(16), 771.118(d)(7)-(8) and 

identified 12 additional project delivery provisions. We combined 

1GA0-12-593 

Page 41 GA0-18~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
97 


35944.070

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

provisions that were modified in later statutory language and did not 

specify between different versions of the provisions, as this precision was 

not necessary for our purposes. For example, the 150-Day Statute of 

Limitations provision was created in SAFETEA-LU (section 6002) as a 

180-day statute of limitations and amended in MAP-21 (section 1308) to 

150 days, which is the version we used. We also grouped the provisions 

into categories for ease of understanding; determined if provisions were 

applicable to highway projects or transit projects, or both; and specified if 

provisions were required or optional, based on professional judgement 

and legal review. We define "required" provisions to mean that federal 

agencies or state or local transportation agencies that are subject to a 

provision must adhere to the requirements and obligations in the 

provision, if all the conditions for its use have been satisfied. We define 

"optional" provisions to mean that the relevant entity (a federal agency or 

state or local transportation agency) can choose to use the provision if 

circumstances allow. 

We met with officials from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

and the Federal Transit Administration (FT A) to confirm that we had a 

complete list of project delivery provisions for highway and transit 

projects. 

To determine states' awareness, use, and perceived effects of the project 

delivery provisions on highway projects over the previous 5 years, we 

surveyed state DOTs within all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico. We directed the survey to officials in state DOTs that 

oversee environmental compliance for highway projects under NEPA. 

Because these officials do not have responsibilities with respect to three 

Advance Planning category's provisions that allow certain activities to 

occur prior to the completion of a NEPA review, we excluded these 

project delivery provisions from the survey. 2 We also excluded two 

provisions from the survey that are related to DOT assignment of federal 

NEPA authority, because their use requires a written agreement between 

FHWA and state DOTs, and we addressed those provisions separately 

through interviews with states that have such written agreements in 

place. 3 Our survey response rate was 100 percent. In order to ensure that 

2

The three Advance Planning category's prov1sions are the: Design-Build Contracting 

provision, Advance Acquisition of Real Properly provision, and 2-phase Contracts 

provision 

3

The two NEPA Assignment category's provisions are the NEPA Assignment Authority 

provision and the Categorical Exclusion Determination Authon'ty provision. 

Page 42 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
98 


35944.071

Appendix 11: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

respondents would interpret our questions as intended, prior to 

administering the survey, we conducted pretests with state DOTs in four 

states: Georgia, Ohio, Texas, and Washington. In each pretest, we 

conducted a session with state DOT officials during which the officials 

completed the survey and then provided feedback on the clarity of the 

questions. Based on the feedback, we refined some questions and 

restructured parts of the survey. After the four pretests were completed, 

we provided a draft copy of the survey to FHWA and the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) for 

their review and comment. Both provided technical comments that we 

incorporated, as appropriate. Based on early interviews with highway 

project stakeholders and our pretests, we determined that the survey 

should be sent to environmental officials at the state DOTs. Additional 

information about our survey methodology includes the following: 

To determine whom we should send the pretest and survey to (i.e., 

the survey respondent), we used a list of environmental officials at the 

state DOTs compiled by AASHTO. We took steps, such as sending 

early notification e-mails, to help ensure that the list of respondents 

we created was accurate. 

We launched our survey on March 7, 2017. We sent e-mail reminders 

and telephoned survey respondents who had not completed the 

survey after two weeks, urging them to do so as soon as possible. We 

reviewed survey responses for omissions and analyzed the 

information provided. The survey and aggregated responses-with 

the exception of open-ended responses and information that would 

identify individual state DOTs-are provided in appendix IV. 

For each of the provisions included on the survey, we included 

references to legal citations in order to minimize confusion among 

provisions or versions of provisions. 

We provided space in the survey for respondents to provide optional 

comments for each individual provision and for each category of 

provisions. We analyzed these comments primarily for additional 

context and as a source of illustrative examples. 

Because all state DOTs were included in our survey, our analyses are 

not subject to sampling errors. However the practical difficulties of 

conducting any survey may introduce non-sampling errors. For 

example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted or the 

sources of information available to respondents can introduce errors 

into the survey results. We included steps both in the data collection 

and data analysis stages, including pretesting, to minimize such nonPage 43 GA0~18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
99 


35944.072

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

sampling errors. We also sent a draft of the questionnaire to FHWA 

and AASHTO for review and comment. 

We examined the survey results, reviewed survey responses during 

follow-up interviews with selected states, and performed computer 

analyses to identify inconsistencies and other indications of error and 

addressed such issues, where necessary. A second, independent 

analyst checked the accuracy of all computer analyses to minimize 

the likelihood of errors in data processing. 

Based on the survey results, we conducted follow-up interviews with 

officials from 10 state DOTs to discuss their views about the effects the 

project delivery provisions had on the duration of highway projects in their 

states in the past 5 years. We did not independently verify state DOT 

officials' estimates of time savings. We selected state DOTs that reported 

a range of use and effects of the provisions; we also selected 

geographically diverse states. The 10 states we selected were Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas, 

Virginia, and Wyoming. We also asked these state DOTs about their use 

and experiences with the three Advance Planning category's provisions 

we excluded from the survey. These interviews are not generalizable to 

all states but provide additional context for responses. 

To determine transit agencies' awareness, use, and views about the 

effects of the project delivery provisions applicable to transit, we selected 

a non-generalizable sample of 11 transit agencies, provided a "checklist" 

of the provisions to the officials regarding their awareness and use of the 

provisions, and interviewed officials at those agencies that oversee NEPA 

reviews for transit projects. We selected these agencies based primarily 

on the number of times they issued a notice of intent to prepare an EIS in 

the Federal Register from 2005 through 2016 to identify those transit 

agencies that may have experience preparing EISs or some another 

NEPA review and experience using transit project delivery provisions. 

While notices of intent to prepare an EIS do not always result in a transit 

agency's conducting an actual EIS review, they indicate instances in 

which a transit agency plans to conduct an EIS review. Other factors, 

such as ridership and geographic location, were also considered to select 

the 11 transit agencies. We identified contacts for the transit agencies by 

calling the transit agencies' Planning and Environmental Review 

departments and identifying individuals that had experience with 

environmental reviews and project delivery provisions. We interviewed 

officials at the following transit agencies: 

Capital Metro (Austin, Texas), 

Pag9 44 GA0·18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
100 


35944.073

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Chicago Transit Authority, 

Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority, 

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 

Sacramento Regional Transit District, 

San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority, 

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, 

Sound Transit (Seattle, Washington), 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, and 

Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon. 

Similar to the survey we provided to state DOTs regarding highway 

projects, we provided the transit agencies with a "checklist" of the 

provisions in which the transit agency officials indicated whether they had 

heard of and used the provisions. To understand why the provisions may 

not be used by selected transit agencies, we also examined the 

frequency in which transit agencies filed a notice of intent to prepare an 

EIS in the Federal Register. After discussions with FTA, we used the 

number of times transit agencies filed a notice of intent to prepare an EIS 

as a proxy because agencies that have performed multiple EISs, which 

are typically complex in nature, are more likely to use the provisions and 

be able to offer insight Transit agencies may also have experience using 

provisions related to categorical exclusions since transit agencies process 

their NEPA reviews more commonly using categorical exclusions. 

However, we did not examine the extent to which categorical exclusions 

are used by transit agencies as a proxy to identify agencies that have 

experience using the provisions in part because FTA's current database, 

TrAMS, does not have comprehensive data on categorical exclusions. 

We discussed transit agency officials' views about the effects of the 

provisions during our interviews. These interviews are not generalizable 

to all transit agencies but provide anecdotal information and context. 

To evaluate the extent that DOT has assigned NEPA authority to states 

and the effects states have reported from assuming NEPA authority, we 

identified states that have assumed NEPA authority based on information 

from FHWA: Alaska, California, Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Utah. We did 

not include Alaska in our review because that state did not assume NEPA 

authority until November 2017. For the five states we reviewed, we 

interviewed state DOT officials and reviewed relevant documentation 

Page 45 GA0·18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
101 


35944.074

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

including memorandums of understanding and analyses the state DOTs 

conducted on NEPA assignment authority, such as methodologies for 

calculating NEPA assignment time savings. We also surveyed the state 

DOTs that have not yet sought NEPA authority to assess their interest in 

assuming NEPA authority. In addition, we interviewed FHWA officials 

about procedures to oversee the performance of NEPA assignment 

states and interviewed FHWA division officials from those states. We 

compared FHWA's procedures to oversee NEPA assignment states 

against standards for information and communication contained in 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. 4 

To determine available information on the number and percentage of the 

different NEPA reviews and costs of conducting NEPA reviews for 

highway and transit projects, we reviewed relevant publications, obtained 

documents and analyses from federal agencies, and interviewed federal 

officials and individuals from professional associations with expertise in 

conducting NEPA analyses. We also included a question on costs of 

conducting NEPA reviews in the survey we administered to state DOTs. 

For all objectives, we interviewed agency officials and stakeholders 

involved in highway and transit projects from FHWA and FTA 

headquarters and transportation industry and environmental 

organizations that are familiar with project delivery and environmental 

review. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2016 to January 2018 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Page 46 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
102 


35944.075

Appendix Ill: Project Delivery Provisions 

Included in the Three Most Recent Federal 

Transportation Reauthorization Acts That 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

Table 2: Project Delivery Provisions Included in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA-LU), the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), and the Fixing America's Surface 

Transportation Act (FAST Act) That Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

GAO category 

for provision 

Accelerated 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act 

(NEPA) Review 

GAO term for provision 

Categoncal Exclusion for Mu!timodal Projects 

Authorizes a Department of Transportation (DOT) 

operating administration to apply a categorical exclusion 

of another DOT operating administration to a mu!timodal 

project 

MAP-21 § 1314, as amended by 

FAST Act § 1310 (codified at 49 U.S C. § 304) 

Categorical Exclusion in Emergencies 

Designates the repair reconstruction, restoration, 

retrofitting, or replacement of any road, highway, bridge, 

tunnel, or transit facility that was damaged by an 

emergency as a categorical exclusion 

MAP-21 § 1315 (23 U.S.C. § 109 note) 

23 C.F R. § 771 117(o)(9) 

23 C.F.R. § 771.118(c)(11) 

Categorical Exclusion for Projects wtthin the Existing 

Operational Right~of-Wa/ 

Designates a project within an existing operational rightof~way as a categorical exclusion 

MAP-21: § 1316 (23 US. C.§ 109 note) 

23 C.F.R. § 771.117(0)(18) 

23 C.F.R § 771118(c)(12) 

Categoncal Exclusion for Projects with Limited Federal 

Funds 

Authorizes the designation of a categoncai exclusion for 

projects receiving less than $5 million in federal funds, or 

less than 15 percent federal funds for a project under $30 

million, subject to an annual inflation adjustment 

MAP-21· § 1317, as amended by 

FAST Act§ 1314 (23 U.S.C. § 109 note) 

23 C.F.R § 771.117(o)(23) 

23 C.FR. § 771118(C)(13) 

Categoncal Exclusion for Geotechnical and Archeological 

Investigations 

For highway projects, designates a categoncal exclusion 

for geotechnical and archeological mvest1gations to 

prov1de information for preliminary design 

23 C F.R § 771.117(0)(24) 

Page 47 

Highway Transit Required 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(Transit) 

Optional 

X 

X 

X 

X 

GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
103 


35944.076

GAO category 

for provision 

Appendix Ill: Project Delivery Provisions 

Included in the Three Most Recent Federal 

Transportation Reauthorization Acts That 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

GAO term for provision Highway Transit Required 

(Transit) 

Optional 

Categorical Exclusion for Environmental Restoration 

For highway projects, designates environmental 

restoration and pollution abatement actions to minimize 

or mitigate the impact of any existing transportation 

facility. 

23 C.F.R. § 771.117(c)(25) 

Eliminating the Documentation and Pnor Approval 

Requirement for Categorical Exc!us1on for Highway 

Modermzat!on 

For h1ghway projects, desJgnates resurfacing, restoration, 

rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders. or adding 

auxiliary lanes as a categorical exclus1on that does not 

require documentation or prior FHWA approval 

23 C.F.R § 771.117(c)(26) 

Eliminatmg the Documentation and Prior Approval 

Requirement for Categorical Exclusion for Hlghway 

Safety 

For highway projects, designates highway safety or traffic 

operations improvement projects, Including the 

installation of ramp metering control dev1ces and lighting, 

as a categoncal exclusion that ooes not require 

documentation or prior FHWA approvaL 

23 C.F.R § 771117(c)(27) 

Elimmating the Oocumentat1on and Prior Approval 

Reqwrement for Categorical Exclusion for Bridge 

Projects at Railway~Highway Cross1ngs 

For highway projects, designates bridge rehabilitation, 

reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of 

grade separation to replace existing at*grade railroad 

crossings, as a categorical exclusion that does not 

require documentation or pnor FHWA approval 

23 C F R 

For FHWA-funded ferry projects. designates the 

purchase. construction, replacement, or rehabilitation of 

ferry vessels that would not require a change in the 

function of the ferry terminals as a categoncal exclusion 

23 C.F.R § 771.117(c)(29) 

Categorical Exclusion for FHWA-funded Ferry FaciHty 

Rehabilitation or Reconstruction 

For FHWA-funded ferry terminal projects, designates the 

rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing ferry facilities 

that do not substantially enlarge the footprint or capacity 

as a categonca! excluSIOn. 

23 C F.R. 

Page 48 

X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

GA0·18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
104 


35944.077

GAO category 

for provision 

Appendix Ill: Project Delivery Provisions 

Included in the Three Most Recent Federal 

Transportation Reauthorization Acts That 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

(Transit) 

GAO term for provision Highway Transit Required Optional 

Categorical ExcluSIOn for Bridge Removal X X 

Designates bridge removal and brldge removal related 

activities, such as in~channe! work, disposal of materials 

and debris as a categorical exclusion 

23 C.F.R. § 771.118(c)(14) 

Categoncal ExcluSIOn for Preventative Maintenance to X X 

Culverts and Channels 

Designates preventative maintenance, including safety 

treatments, to culverts and channels withtn and adjacent 

to transportation r!ght~of~way as a categorical exclusion 

23 C.F.R. § 771.118(c)(15) 

Categorical Exclusion for Geotechnical and Archeological X X 

Investigations 

For transit projects, designates geotechnical and 

archeological investigations to provide information for 

prehminary design, environmental analyses, and 

permitting purposes as a categorical exclus1on 

23 C.F R § 771.118(c)(16) 

Categorical Exclus1on for Minor Rail Realignment X X 

Designates minor transportation fac11ity realignment for 

rail safety reasons. such as 1mproving vertical and 

horizontal alignment of railroad crossmgs, as a 

categorical exclusion 

23 C.F R. § 771119(d)(7) 

Categorical Exc1us1on for Modernization of Trans:t X X 

Structures 

Des1gnates modernization or minor expans1ons of transit 

structures and fac1!it1es outside existing right~of~way, 

such as ridges, stations, or rail yards, as a categorical 

exclusion 

23 C F.R. § 711 118(d)(8) 

Mmor Impacts to Protected Public Land X X X X 

Authorizes a historic site. park land, or refuge to be used 

for a transportation program or project 1f it is determined 

that "de minimis" impact would result 

SAFETEA-LU: § 6009, as amended by 

FAST Act:§§ 1301-1303 (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 138(b)) 

Page 49 GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
105 


35944.078

GAO category 

for provision 

Administrative 

and Coordination 

Changes 

Appendix Ill: Project Delivery Provisions 

Included in the Three Most Recent Federal 

Transportation Reauthorization Acts That 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

Applies to: 

GAO term for provision Highway Transit 

150~Day Statute of Lim itat1ons X X 

Bars claims seeking judiCial rev1ew of a permit, license, 

or approval issued by a federal agency for highway 

projects unless they are filed within 150 days after 

publication of a notice tn the Federal Register 

announcing the final agency action, or unless a shorter 

time is specified in the federal law under which the 

judicial review is allowed 

SAFETEA-LU § 6002, as amended by 

MAP-21. § 1308 (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 139(1)) 

Planning Documents Used 1n NEPA Review X X 

Authorizes the lead agency for a project to use planning 

products, such as planning decisions, analysis, or 

studtes. m the environmental review process of the 

project 

MAP-21 § 1310, as amended by 

FAST Act§ 1305 (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 168(b)) 

23 C.F R Part 450 

Programmatic Mitigation Plans Used m NEPA Review X X 

Requires that any federal agency responsible for 

environmental review give substantial weight to the 

recommendations m a state or metropoiitan 

programmatic mitigation plan, if one had been developed 

as part of the transportation planning process, when 

carrymg out responsibilities under NEPA or other 

enwonmentallaw 

MAP-21: § 1311. as amended by 

FAST Act:§ 1306 (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 169(D) 

Comb1ne Ftnal Environmental Impact Statement {EIS) X X 

and Record of Decision in Certain Cases 

To the maximum extent practicable, the lead agency 

shall comb1ne the ftnal EIS and record of deciston m 

certain cases 

FAST Act:§§ 1311 &1304 (codified at49 U.S.C. § 

304a(a)-(b)) 

Environmental Documents for Use Among DOT X X Administrations on Similar Projects 

Authorizes the operating administrations of DOT to adopt 

a draft EtS, environmental assessment, or final E!S of 

another operating administration without recirculating the 

document for public review if the proposed action is 

substantially the same as the proJect considered in the 

document to be adopted. 

FAST Act: 1311 

Provision is~: 

(Highway) (Transit) 

Required Optional Optional 

X 

X X 

X' 

X 

X X 

Pago so GA0~18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
106 


35944.079

GAO category 

for provision 

Appendix 111: Project Delivery Provisions 

Included in the Three Most Recent Federal 

Transportation Reauthorization Acts That 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

(Transit) 

GAO term for provision Highway Transit Required Optional 

45MDay limit to ldentify Resource Agenctes X X X 

Establishes a 45-day limit after the notice of intent date 

for a lead agency to identify other agencies to parttctpate 

in the environmental review process on E!S projects. 

FAST Act:§ 1304(d)(1) (codified at 23 U.S C.§ 

139(d)(2)) 

Use Single NEPA Document X X X 

Requires to the maximum extent practicable and 

consistent with federal law, for the EIS project lead 

agency to develop a single NEPA document to satisfy the 

requirements for federal approval or other federal action, 

including permits 

§ 1304(d)(2) (codified at 23 US C.§ 

Creates several reqwrements at the start of an EIS 

project's environmental review process, such as 1) 

establishing a 45-day deadline for DOT to provide a 

written response to the project sponsor on mit1ation of the 

environmental review process; 2) establishing a 45-day 

deadline for DOT to respond to a request for designation 

of a lead agency; and 3) requiring the development of a 

checklist by the lead agency, as appropriate, to he!p 

1dent1fy naturaL cultural, and historic resources, to identify 

cooperating and participating agencies and improve 

interagency collaboration 

FAST Act §1304(e) (codified at 23 U.S. C.§ 139(e)) 

Reduce Duplication by Eliminating Detailed X X X X 

Constderation of Alternative Actions 

Authorizes the lead agency to reduce duplication, by 

el!minating from detailed consideration an alternative 

proposed in an E!S if the alternative was already 

proposed in a planning process or state environmental 

rev1ew process 

13041DI2)(C) (codified at 23 u S.C § 

Page 51 GA0~18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
107 


35944.080

GAO category 

for provision 

Appendix Ill: Project Delivery Provisions 

Included in the Three Most Recent Federal 

Transportation Reauthorization Acts That 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

Applies to: 

GAO term for provision Highway Transit 

Use of Federal Highway or Transit Funds to Support )( )( 

Agencies Participating in the Environmental Rev1ew 

Processg 

Allows a public entity to use its federal highway or transit 

funds to support a federal or state agency or Indian tribe 

participating in the environmental review process on 

activities that directly contribute to expediting and 

improving project planning and dehvery 

SAFETEA-LU § 60020), as amended by 

MAP-21: § 1307 and 

FAST Act:§ 1304(i) (codified at 23 U S.C.§ 139(j)) 

Issue Resolution Process X X 

Establishes procedures to resolve issues between state 

DOTs and relevant resource agencies. 

SAFETEA-LU: § 6002(a), as amended by 

MAP-21: § 1306 and 

FAST Act§ 1304(h) (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 139(h)) 

Enhanced Technical Assistance & Accelerating Project X X 

Completion 

At the request of a project sponsor or a governor of the 

state in WhiCh the project is located, requires DOT to 

prov1de additional technical assistance for a project 

where E!S review has taken 2 years, and establish a 

schedule for review completion within 4 years 

MAP-21: § 1309 (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 139(m)) 

Programmatic Agreements for Effic1ent Environmental 

Rev1ew1 

X X 

Requires DOT to seek opportunities with states to enter 

into programmatic agreements to carry out environmental 

and other proJect reviews 

MAP-21 §§ 1305(a) and 1318(d) (23 U S.C.§ 139 note) 

FAST Act § 1304(b) 

Early CoordmatJon Activities in Enwonmental Review X X Process 

Encourages early cooperation between DOT and other 

agencies, includmg states or local planning agencies, in 

the environmental review process to avoid delay and 

duplication, and suggests early coordination activlt1es. 

Early coordination includes establishment of MOUs with 

states or local planning agencies 

MAP-21 1320 U.S.C 139 

Provision isa: 

(Highway) (Transit) 

Required Optional Optional 

X )( 

)( 

X 

)( 

)( X 

Page 52 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
108 


35944.081

GAO category 

for provision 

Planning 

Appendix Ill: Project Delivery Provisions 

Included ln the Three Most Recent Federal 

Transportation Reauthorization Acts That 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

Applies to: 

GAO term for provision Highway Transit 

Stakeholder Agency Comments in Area of Expertise X X 

lim1ts the comments of participating agencies to subject 

matter areas within the spec1al expertise or junsdiction of 

the agency 

FAST Act:§ 1304(D(2)(A) (codified at 23 U.S C.§ 

139(0(4 i(A)(ii)) 

Coordination Plan for Pubhc and Agency Participation X X 

Requires a coordination plan for pubhc and agency 

partiCipation in the environmental rev1ew process w1th1n 

90 days of notice of intent or the 1nitiat1on of an 

Environmental Assessment, including a schedule for 

completion of the enVIronmental review process for the 

project 

SAFETEA-LU: § 6002 as amended by 

MAP-21 § 1305, and 

FAST Act:§ 1304(g)(1) (codified at23 U.S. C.§ 

139(g)(1)(A) and (B)) 

Resolved Issues are Not Reconsidered Without X X 

Significant New Information 

Issues that are resolved by the lead agency with 

concurrence from stakeholder cannot be reconsidered 

unless there is significant new Information or 

circumstances arise 

§ 1304(h)(1) (codified at 23 U.S C § 

Permits states or local transportation agencies to release 

requests for proposals and award deslgn.build contracts 

prior to the completiOn of the NEPA process; however, it 

precludes a contractor from proceeding with final design 

or construction before completion of the NEPA process 

SAFETEA-LU § 1503(2) (codified at 23 U.S C § 

Authorizes states to acquire real property i!"lterests for a 

project before completion of the NEPA process 

MAP-21. § 1302 (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 108(c)) 

2·phase Contracts X 

Authorizes the awarding of 2·phase contracts 

(construction manager/ general contractor) with 

preconstruction serv'1ces and preliminary design of a 

project using a competitive selection process before the 

completion of the NEPA process 

Provision is11 : 

(Highway) (Transit) 

Required Optional Optional 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Page 53 GA0~18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
109 


35944.082

GAO category 

for provision 

NEPA 

Assignment 

Total provisions 

Appendix HI: Project Delivery Provisions 

Included In the Three Most Recent Federal 

Transportation Reauthorization Acts That 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

Applies to: 

GAO term for provision Highway Transit 

Categorical Exclusion Determination Authority X X 

Authonzes DOT to ass1gn and a state to assume 

responsibility for determining if projects can be 

categorically excluded from NEPA rev1ew. 

SAFETEA-LU. § 6004(a), as amended by 

MAP-21 § 1312, and 

FAST Act: 1307 

Authorizes DOT to assign ~nd a state to assume many 

federal environmental review responsibilities for highway, 

public transportation, and railroad projects, to be 

administered in accordance with a written agreement 

between DOT and the participating state. 

SAFETEA-LU § 6005(a), as amended by 

MAP-21: § 1313, and 

FAST Act:§ 1308 (codified at 23 U.S. C.§ 327) 

34 29 

Provision isa: 

(Highway) (Transit) 

Required Optional Optional 

X X 

12 22 17 

Source GAO analys1s at Sale. Accwntatlte. FleXIble. EffiCien1 Transportation Equot~ Act A L~acy lor Users. !!1e Mov1ng Ahead for Progress •n the 21Sl Century Act al'l(l the F!xlflg Amem;a·s Sul'face 

Tran.sportatronAct ) GA0-18-222 

"We define ''required" provisions to mean that federal agencies. or state or local transportation 

agencies that are subject to a provision must adhere to the requ1rements and obligations in the 

provision, if an the conditions for tiS use have been satisfied. We define "optional" provisions to mean 

that the relevant entity (a federal agency or state or local transportation agency) can choose to use 

the provision if circumstances allow 

~> .. categorical exclusion" means a category of actiOns that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and for which, therefore. neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required 

"The existmg operational right-of-way refers to a strip of land that has been disturbed for an existing 

transportation fac1Hty or is maintained for transportation purposes, such as a highway, public footpath, 

rail bed, landscapmg, or rest areas wtth dtrect access to a controlled access highway 

dThe provision bars judicia! review of claims unless they are timely filed 

"Once states or metropolitan planning organizatiOns decide to use such plans federal agencies must 

give substantial weight to the plans, 

rThere may be instances 1n which a combined document is not the best option 

sFunds may be provided for transportation-planning act!Vlties that precede the mitiation of the 

environmental review process. for dedicated staffing, for training of agency personnel, for information 

gathering and mapping, and for development of programmatic agreements 

~once a project sponsor or governor requests assistance. DOT is required to provide it. 

'"ProgrammatiC agreements" are agreements between state departments of transportation and their 

Federal Highway Administration div1sion office on processes and procedures to carry out 

environmental reviews and other required project reviews 

Page 54 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
110 


35944.083

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and 

Summarized Responses 

This appendix provides a copy of the survey sent to state departments of 

transportation in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 

concerning their use of the project delivery provisions for highway 

projects. The appendix also includes the responses received for each of 

the provisions; it does not include information on non-responses, which 

resulted either from the survey's skip patterns or from state officials 

voluntarily declining to respond. 

GAO also developed names for the provisions in the survey; we 

subsequently modified the names of several of the provisions for the text 

of our report to make them more intuitive for readers. The following list 

matches the provisions that have different names in our report than in the 

survey. 

Report Name Survey Name 

Categorical Exclusion for Projects within the 

Existing Operational Right-of-Way 

Eliminating the Documentation and Prior Approval • 

Requirement for Categorical Exclusion for 

Highway Modernization 

Eliminating the Documentation and Prior Approval 

Requirement for Categorical Exclusion for 

Highway Safety 

Eliminating the Documentation and Prior Approval 

Requirement for Categorical Exclusion for Bridge 

Projects at Railway-Highway Crossings 

Categorical Exclusion for FHWA-funded Ferry 

Vessels 

Categorical Exclusion for FHWA-funded Ferry 

Facility Rehabilitation or Reconstruction 

Planning Documents Used in National 

Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) Review 

Reduce Duplication by Eliminating Detailed 

Consideration of Alternative Actions 

Use of Federal Highway or Transit Funds to 

Support Agencies Participating in the 

Environmental Review Process 

Page 55 

Categorical Exclusion for Projects Within the 

Right-of-Way 

Categorical Exclusion for Highway 

Modernization 

Categorical Exclusion for Highway Safety and 

Operational Improvement 

Categorical Exclusion for Bridge Projects at 

Railway-Highway Crossings 

Categorical Exclusion for Ferry Vessels 

Categorical Exclusion for Ferry Facilities 

Planning Products for Use in NEPA Review 

Reduce Duplicate Consideration of Alternatives 

Offering Financial Assistance to Stakeholder 

Agencies 

GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
111 


35944.084

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and 

Summarized Responses 

Report Name Survey Name 

Use Single NEPA Document Single NEPA Document 

Procedures for Initiation of Environmental Review Initiation of Environmental Review Process 

P'age 56 GA0~18M222 Highway and Transit P'roject Delivery 

35944.085

Page 57 

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Highway Project Delivery Questionnaire 

March 7, 2017 

Introduction TheUS Government Accountability Off1ce (GAO) !San Independent nonparttsan age.ncy that aSSISts Congress 1n evaluattng federal programs 

Th1s quest1onna1re 1s part of a legislatively mandated GAO study regard1ng prov1S1ons that a1m to accelerate proJect delivery and streamline the 

environmental rev1ew process required under the Nat1onal Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). These project dehvery proviSIOns were enacted m the past three surface transportatton reauthoriLat10n acts---Safe, Accountable, Flextble, Efflctent Transportabon Equity Act A Legacy 

for Users (SAFETEA-LU, 2005), Mov1ng Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, 2012), and F1x1ng America's Surface Transportation 

Act (FAST Act, 2015) 

The results of th1s quest1onna1re Will help tnform a written report to Congress In our report. we wll! generally use only the aggregated results of this 

queshonna1re GAO Will not atlnbute spec1f1C responses of th1s quest1onn;;me to any IndiVIdual respondents or otherwise diSClose them to the 

pub!1c Howt;?cver, GAO Will 1nclude a !tSI of highway agenc1es man appendtx of the report as hav1ng responded to the questionnaire 

Please answer thts quest1onna1re from your perspectiVe as environmental dtrector (or designee) of your agency tf you are not able to answer all 

the queshons tn this quest1onna1re yourself. you may need to coordinate your responses wtth the appropnate people within your agency Please 

complete and return this quest1onnmre by e-ma11 to LevyC@gao gov Wlthm 2 weeKs of rece1v1ng It Each agency should only submtt one 

quest1onnatre In testing thiS survey, we found that 1t took approxtmately 30 m1nutes to complete We may contact you to clanfy responses as 

needed 

Thank you m advance for your time and consideratiOn. 

GAO Contacts 

Ethan Levy at (202) 512·4807 (LevyE@gao gov) 

Bnan Chung at {206) 287-4795 (ChungC@gao gov) 

GA0-18¥222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 

35944.086

Page 58 

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Instructions 

This quest1onna1re can t>e f11led out us1ng Microsoft Word Please save th1s document to your computer before entenng any Information Please 

use your mouse to nav1gate, cl!ck1ng on the fteld or check box 0 you W!Sh to answer. To select a check box or a button, cl1ck on the center of the box. To change or deselect a check box response, chck on the check box and the 'X' wt!l disappear For queshons that require a wr1tten response, 

click the answer f1cld w1th your mouse and enter text The field w!ll expand to accommodate your answer When you have completed the 

quest1onna1re, please save rt to your computer and ema1l1t as an attachment to LevyE@gao gov 

Contact Information 

Please provide contact 1nformat1on for the person pnmanly responsible for completing th1s questton set so that we may contact you shOuld any 

clanhcat1ons be needed If mult1ple individuals are involved in these quesl!ons, please ldentlfy a s1ngle point of 

IYourName 

Title 

State Highway Agency 

Phone 

Email 

GAO quest10nnairt> orr piqecl delwery prov1sooos 

--

Highway and Transit Project Delivery 

35944.087

Appendix !V; Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Part I. 

lr 

48 4 0 

Page 59 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 

35944.088

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Part !lA. 

Page 60 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 

35944.089

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Page 61 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 

35944.090

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Page 62 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 

35944.091

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Page 63 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 

35944.092

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Page 64 GA0·18·222 Highway and Transit Project De!JVery 

35944.093

Appendix !V; Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Page 65 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 

35944.094

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Page 66 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 

35944.095

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Page 67 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 

35944.096

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Page 68 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 

35944.097

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Page 69 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 

35944.098

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Page 70 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
126 


35944.099

35944.100

Appendix lV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Part liB. 

sect1on 

Page 72 

Sped up greatly 2 Sped up somewhat 16 

No effect 14 

SiowPd down 

Slowed down gt()atly 0 

Too soon Kl JUdge 13 

GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 

35944.101

Appendix !V: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Page 73 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 

35944.102

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Page 74 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 

35944.103

MAP-21 Sec 

MAP21 S<:-v 

Page 75 

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

up greatly 1 

-Sr:•2d up somewhat 4 

No effect 19 

.SlOWed down somewha

Slr.r.ved down greatly 0 

Too soon to JUdge 20 

GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Projoct Delivery 

35944.104

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Page 76 

Sped up greatly 1 

SpeC up somewhat 9 

17 

Bia#ed down somewha

Slowed down great:y 0 

Too soon to 14 

GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 

35944.105

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Page 77 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 

35944.106

Page 78 

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Thank you. You have completed the Highway Project Delivery Que$tionnaire. 

Internet Hyperlinks 

We proVIded the following !nternet hyperlinks for reference to citat1ons. if needed You must be connected to the Internet to usc th1s feature If the hyper!lnl< d

not work. please copy and paste the following URLs into your Internet browser 

US Government PubliShing Office web§ites 

SAFETEA-LU https /lwww gpo_gow'fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ59ipdf!PLAW- 109publ59 pdf 

MAP-21 https /Jwww gpo gowTdsys/pkg/PLAW-112pubi141Jpdf/PLAW-112publ141 pdf 

FAST Act hti!J$/Iwww gpo gov/fctsyslpkg!PLAW-114publ94/pdf/PLAW-114publ94.pdf 

23 CFR 771 117 FHWA Categoncal Exclus1ons https /lwww 

GAO qveWortrHllf¢ on pr01e<:t ctehvery PfOIII$101U 

GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
134 


35944.107

Appendix V: Transit Agency Provisions 

Checklist and Responses Regarding 

Awareness and Use 

Are you aware 

of this project 

delivery 

Provision provision? 

Category number Description (YorN) 

CE Authorizes the lead agency of a multlmodal project to 9 

apply categorical exclustons from the NEPA implementing 

regulations or procedures of a cooperating DOT operating 

administration 

CE Designates the repair or reconstruction of any road, 

highway, or bridge that was damaged by an emergency as 

a categorical exclusion, subject to certain conditions. 

CE Designates a project within an operational nght·of-way as 11 

a categorical exclusion, subject to certain conditions 

CE Authorizes the designation of a categorical exclusion for 

projects receiving less than $5 million in federal funds, or 

less than 15 percent federal funds for a project under $30 

million, subject to an annual inflation adjustment. 

CE For transit projects, destgnates bridge removal and bndge 

removal related activities, such as in~channel work, 

disposal of materials and debris as a categorical 

exclusion 

CE For transit projects, designates preventative maintenance, 

including safety treatments, to culverts and channels 

within and adjacent to transportation right·of-way as a 

categorical exclusion 

CE For transit projects. des1gnates geotechnical and 

archeological investigations to provide information for 

preliminary design, environmental analyses, and 

permitting purposes as a categorical exclusion 

CE For trans1t projects, designates minor transportation facility 11 

realignment for rail safety reasons, such as improving 

vertical and horizontal ahgnment of railroad crossings, as a 

categorical exclusion 

CE For trans1t projects, designates modernization or minor 10 

expansions of transit structures and facilities outside 

existing right~of·way, such as bridges, stations, or rail 

yards, as a categorical exclusion 

Parkland 10 Authorizes a historic s1te. park !and, or refuge to be used 

exclUSIOn for a transportation program or project if it is determ1ned 

that "de mmimis 1mpact" would result 

Admin 11 Bars claims seeking judicial review of a permit, license, or 

changes approval issued by a federal agency for projects unless 

they are filed within 150 days after publication of a notice 

in the Federal Register announcing the final agency 

action, unless a shorter time is specified 1n the federal law 

under which the judicial review is allowed. 

Have you used 

this project 

delivery 

provision? 

(YorN) 

Page 79 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
135 


35944.108

Category 

Admin 

changes 

Admin 

changes 

Adm1n 

changes 

Admin 

changes 

Adm1n 

changes 

Admm 

changes 

Admin 

changes 

Coordination 

Provision 

number 

12 

13 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Appendix V: Transit Agency Provisions 

Checklist and Responses Regarding 

Awareness and Use 

Are you aware 

of this project 

delivery 

provision? 

Description (Y or N) 

Authorizes the lead agency for a project to use planning 10 

products, such as planning decisions, analysis, or studies, 

m the environmental review process of the project 

Requires that any federal agency responsible for 

env1ronmental review to give substantial weight to a state 

or metropolitan programmatic mitigation plan, if one had 

been developed as part of the transportation planning 

process, when carrying out responsibilities under NEPA or other environmental law 

In 

decisJons, to use an errata attached to a 

mstead of rewriting 1t, 1f the comments are minor. 

the maximum extent practicable, combines the final 

and record of decision in certain cases. 

Authorizes the operating administrations of DOT to adopt 

a draft EIS, EA, or final EIS of another operating 

administration without recirculating the document for public 

review if the proposed action is substantiaHy the same as 

the project considered in the document to be adopted. 

Establishes a 45~day limit after the notice of intent date for 

a lead agency to identify other agencies to participate in 

the environmental review process on EIS projects 

To the maximum extent practicable and consistent w1th 

federal law, requires lead agencies to develop a single 

NEPA document to satisfy the requirements for federal 

approval or other federal action, including permits 

Creates several requirements at the start of a project's 

Section 139 environmental review process, such as 1) 

establishing a 45-day deadHne for DOT to provide a 

written response to the project sponsor on initiation of the 

environmental review process; 2) establishing a 45~day 

deadline for DOT to respond to a request for designation 

of a lead agency; and 3) requiring the development of a 

checklist by the lead agency to help identify natura!, 

cultural, and historic resources, to identify agencies and 

improve interagency collaboration 

Authorizes the lead agency to reduce duplication. by 

eliminating from detailed consideration an alternative 

proposed tn an E!S if the alternative was already proposed 

in a planning process or state environmental review 

process, subject to certain conditions_ 

Allows a state to use its federal funds to support a federal 

or state agency or Indian tnbe participatmg in the 

environmental review process on activities that directly 

contribute to expediting and improving project plannmg 

and 

10 

Have you used 

this project 

delivery 

provision? 

(YorN) 

Page 80 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
136 


35944.109

Provision 

Appendix V: Transit Agency Provisions 

Checklist and Responses Regarding 

Awareness and Use 

Are you aware Have you used 

of this project this project 

delivery delivery 

provision? provision? 

~~~~~--~~~----~D~e~s~cr~ip~t~io~n~~~~~~~--~~----~~----~{Y~o~r~N)~----~{Y.orN) Establishes procedures to resolve issues between project 8 0 

Category number 

Coordmation 21 

Coordmation 22 

Coordination 23 

Coordination 24 

Coordination 25 

Coordination 26 

Coordination 27 

ProJeCt 28 

Delivery 

ProJeCt 29 

Delivery 

Project 30 

Delivery 

Source GAO analySis l GA0.1S-222 

sponsors and relevant resource agencies 

At the request of a project sponsor or a governor of the 

state in which the project is located, requires DOT to 

provide additional technical assistance for a project where 

EIS review has taken 2 years, and establish a schedule for 

review completion within 4 years. 

Requires DOT to seek opportunities with states to enter 

mto programmatic agreements to carry out environmental 

and other project reviews 

Encourages early cooperatlon between DOT and other 

agencies, including states or local planning agencies, in 

the environmental review process to avoid delay and 

duplication, and suggests early coordination activities. 

Early coordination includes establishment of MOUs with 

states or local planning agencies. 

Lim1ts the comments of participating agencies to subject 

matter areas within the special expertise or junsdiction of 

the agency 

Requires a coordination plan for public and agency 

participation in the Section 139 environmental review 

process with1n 90 days of a Notice of Intent or the initJat1on 

of an Environmental Assessment, including a schedule. 

Issues that are resolved by the lead agency w1th 

concurrence from stakeholders cannot be reconsidered 

unless there is significant new information or 

circumstances arise 

Perm1ts states or local transportation agei1ctes to release 

requests for proposals and award designMbuild contracts 

prior to the completion of the NEPA process; however, it 

precludes a contractor from proceeding with final design or 

construction before completion of the NEPA process. 

Authorizes states to acquire real property interests for a 

project before completion of the NEPA process 

Authorizes the awarding of contracts for the 

preconstruction services and preliminary design of a 

project using a competitive selection process before the 

completion of the NEPA process 

10 

10 

Page 81 GA0*18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
137 


35944.110

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Transportation 

US. Department of Transportation 

Susan Fleming 

Direc10r, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

U.S, Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

441 G Street NW 

Washington, DC 20548 

Dear Ms. Fleming: 

DEC l 81011 

The Department ofTransportation (DOT) is committed to aecclerating project delivery while 

preserving and enhancing the quality of the human and natural environments. Congress provided 

provisions in legislation aimed at accelerating the delivery of highway and transit projects. The 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FT A) have 

considerable flexibilities to accelerate project delivery, including the Surlflce Transportation 

Project Delivery Program under section 327 of title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), commonly 

referred to as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Assignment Program. 

FHWA provides mntinuous, timely, and constructive technical assistance to States m the NEPA 

Assignment Program, to include the following examples: 

Creating an Environmental Review Toolkit; 

Conducting NEP A Assignment State workshops; 

Conducting technical training in NEPA, at the request of the State; 

Conducting readiness assessments to identify areas of improvements in advance of taking 

on assigrunent responsibilities under 23 1J .S.C. 326 and 327; and 

Collaborating daily with States that express interest in the program to ensure successful 

implementation. 

The NEPA Assignment Program statute requires the Secretary of Transportation to conduct 

annual audits and ffi()nitoring to ensure compliance by a State with the agreement developed for 

program participation under 23 U.S.C. 327(g)(l) and (h). However, the statute does not require 

F!tWA to measure environmental review efficiency and timeliness of participating States. 

\\'bile accelerating project delivery remains important, focusing only on timeliness metrics for 

environmental reviews in NEP A Assignment States ov!!dooks other slgnificfl11t benefits of the 

Program. For example, the NEP A Asstgrunent Program gives States control over when and how 

to conduct envirorunental reviews as long as they comply with the Federal requirements. This is 

one of the most significant factors that a State considers in deciding 'Nhetherto request NEPA 

Assignment, and it is particularly important for the States with large Federal-aid highway programs. 

Page 82 GA0~18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
138 


35944.111

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Transportation 

Given these circumstances, we can only partially concur with GAO's recommendation to offer 

and provide guidance or technical assistance to NEP A assignment States on developing 

evaluation methodologies, including baseline time frames and timeliness measures 

Building upon existing guidance, we will clarify environmental review start times and 

communicate this to all FHWA Divisions and States. NEPA Assignment States may choose to 

use this guidance at their discretion. Additionally, we will provide the NEPA Assignment States 

with any Federal Government-wide guidance developed on this area as a result of Executive 

Order 13&07 and other initiatives involving performance measures of environmental reviews. !t 

is our practice to affirmatively notify NEPA Assignment States of any new guidance related to 

the environmental review of projects. We will provide a detailed response to the 

recommendation within 60 days of the final report's issuance. 

We appreciate the opportunity 10 respond to the GAO draft report. Please contact Madeline M. 

Chulumovich, Director, Audit Relations and Program Improvement, at (202) 366-6512 .... ith any 

questions. 

~~)t.'---- Kei{!iNe!son 

Assistant Secretary for Administration 

Page 83 GA0·18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
139 


35944.112

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

{101081) 

Susan Fleming, (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov 

In addition to the contact named above, Steve Cohen (Assistant Director); 

Brian Chung (Analyst-in-Charge); Rich Johnson; Delwen Jones; Hannah 

Laufe; Ethan Levy; Ned Malone; Josh Ormond; Tina Paek; Cheryl 

Peterson; and Joe Thompson made significant contributions to this report 

Page 84 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
140 


35944.113

GAO's Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

Connect with GAO 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO's website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov 

and select "E-mail Updates." 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO's website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Linkedln, Twitter, and You Tube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog. 

Contact: 

Website; http://www.gao.gov/fraudneUfraudnethtm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

James-Christian Blackwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548 

(} Please Print on Recycled Paper. 
141 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, sir. 

A couple of short questions, and I would invite a short answer 

OK? 

Ms. NASON. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Do you believe that a Federal-State partnership 

is a critical cornerstone of the Federal Aid Highway Program, and 

can you commit to continuing and even strengthening that cooperation between FHWA and its State, local and tribal partners? 

Ms. NASON. I agree it is a critical partnership. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Here is another hard one. In 2017, 

the most recent year for which data are available, nearly 7,000 

non-motorized users were killed. What will you do as FHWA to 

begin dramatically lowering these unacceptable numbers? 

Ms. NASON. Yes, Senator. I think I may not be as quick, but I 

do think there are plenty of places where FHWA—— 

Senator CARPER. It was a couple of weeks. 

Ms. NASON. From when we talked about pedestrian and cyclist 

safety. But most important in my testimony, having served at the 

department, I know how important it is for modal administrators 

to work together and to share information and data. I think 

FHWA, when focusing on safety, needs to work hand in glove with 

NHTSA, with Federal Motor Carriers, with even rail partners, to 

make sure that we are addressing the problems and we are providing good information for solutions for our State and local and 

tribal government partners. 

Senator CARPER. A related question. A highway network is a crucial means of travel, as we know. However, it is also just one component of a much larger, more complex transportation system. 

What are your plans, what would be your plans to modernize our 

highway system in a way that seamlessly integrates into modes 

such as transit, such as rail, aviation, water and active transportation? 

Ms. NASON. I think having that multi-modal conversation is 

going to be essential. I trust that this is something this committee 

will be talking about as we move forward on legislation. 

One thing we have found at the State Department that is quite 

effective is traveling together. So rather than having a visit from 

diplomatic security and then a visit from the Administration and 

then a visit from Budget, we go together and we talk about problems together. We break off into different rooms, maybe, but then 

we come back together to have a more comprehensive conversation 

with all of our partners. That may be something that we could explore, I think, at DOT. 

Senator CARPER. There is an African proverb that goes something like this, if you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go 

far, travel together. 

Will you support new technologies that can help to improve 

multi-modal connectivity? 

Ms. NASON. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. And here is not an easy question. This is a hard 

one. It is a hard one for all of us. 

The 800-pound gorilla in the room on Surface Transportation has 

been and remains how we are going to pay for this stuff. And I am 

not going to put you on the spot and say, how would you pay for 

142 

it. But I would like to ask you to, just to give us a couple of ideas 

of things that you are aware of, I will just give you an example, 

vehicle miles traveled. We have a number of States that are involved in a pilot program that stretches from ocean to ocean. And 

we hope to learn a lot from that and to maybe be able to move in 

that direction later in the next decade. 

But give us a couple of ideas that you think we should consider 

as we try to figure out how to address this large and growing shortfall in funding surface transportation. 

Ms. NASON. I think most importantly, Senator, as Secretary 

Chao has said, all options are on the table right now for the Administration. I know some States are participating in the VMT 

pilot program and that might turn out to be very effective and provide very good data. Other States are looking at P3s, some States 

have raised the gas tax. We have registration fees. 

I think there are a variety of options, and one thing we have 

been, I know the Secretary has been—— 

Senator CARPER. Let me just ask you a question. Why do you 

think it is so hard for us to deal with this issue? Why do you think 

it is so hard? States have, you just mentioned, States have, Wyoming is among them, a number of States, 30 or so States have addressed these issues, about user fees. They have found remarkably, 

the legislators that vote for them, the Governors that support 

them, get re-elected. It is kind of amazing. 

But we can’t find some, we can’t summon the wherewithal to do 

that. 

Ms. NASON. I think part of the challenge is because the needs are 

so diverse. I spend my weekends in Vermont. It is an entirely different community than my days in D.C. And the drive from D.C. 

to Connecticut to Vermont changes dramatically as we go. In one 

place I have EZ Pass and there is no problem, and in another 

place, I am on a very narrow two-lane road, and I am hoping it has 

been plowed, because they have different weather challenges than 

we have in D.C. 

So I think because the needs are so different, that is why the solutions need to be different. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. Thanks for that. 

I just want to say to Brady and Abby and Alex, I want to thank 

you for showing up today. I know it is hard to miss school, but you 

are good to have done it. I have been watching their faces, how 

they just seem to be reveling in the moment. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. But I just want to say that your husband has 

kept them in tow. I don’t know if my wife and I, when our boys 

were your age, if they would have done this. 

But we are glad you did, and we are glad you didn’t make any 

faces or roll your eyes at inappropriate times when your mom was 

talking. Thank you for joining us today. 

Ms. NASON. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

We have a number of letters of support for your nomination. The 

committee has received numerous letters, including letters from 

former Federal Transportation officials, representatives of State 

transportation departments, infrastructure industry stakeholders. I 

143 

am asking unanimous consent to enter this large packet of letters 

into the record. 

And without objection, we will do so. 

There are no more questions from the panel, but members may 

be able to submit written and follow-up questions. I think Senator 

Gillibrand said she had a couple that she was going to submit. 

They can do that by 5 p.m. today. We would ask that you try to 

respond by noon on Friday, February 1st, so we can move ahead 

with your nomination. 

I want to thank you for your time, your testimony. Thanks to 

Secretary Mineta, you stuck through the whole thing. Don’t you 

think she did a marvelous job? 

Mr. MINETA. Absolutely. 

Senator BARRASSO. And on that, this hearing is adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

144 


35944.114

~fEPHfN E. SANDHERR, Cl'ud Exi>{"tJ1ive ()fiin·r 

January 18, 2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

b~,~cg!c~r!nr~<r,L~~ (8 Quality People. Quahty ProJects. <>~ 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

RE: AGC Support for Nomination of Ms. Nicole Nason to FHW A Administrator 

Dear Mr. Chairman/and Ranking Member: 

The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) strongly supports the nomination of Ms. 

Nicole Nason to serve as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. AGC is a 

national association representing more than 27,000 construction industry businesses with chapters 

and members in every state, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Many of our member 

companies are involved in the construction and reconstruction of the nation's infrastructure, 

including our National Highway System. All of our members believe that a strong partnership 

between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), state departments of transportation and 

the construction industry is the key to providing the nation with needed transportation 

infrastructure improvements in a safe, innovative. efficient and cost-effective fashion. 

Ms. Nason has an exemplary background in transportation. having served as the Administrator of 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NTSHA) from 2006-2008 in the George W. 

Bush Administration. Prior to that, she worked as Assistant Secretary for Government Affairs at 

the U.S. Department of Transportation, where she worked closely with Congress on enacting 

SAFETEA-LU transportation authorization legislation. AGC has had the pleasure of working 

with Ms. Nason in her current position at the Department of State on issues related to the 

construction of U.S. Embassies, where she again has shown herself to be a highly capable and 

effective leader. 

As the ll6'h Congress prepares to work with the Trump Administration on legislation to return 

the nation's infrastructure to world class status, it is important to have a strong leader at the helm 

of the Federal Highway Administration. Ms. Nason is a superb choice to fulfill FHWA's 

leadership role in improving mobility on our nation's highways. As such, AGC urges the Senate 

to quickly confirm her nomination. 

Sincerely, 

?jtt:SLStephen E. Sandherr 

Chief Executive Officer 

The Associated General Contractors of America 
145 


35944.115

January 24,2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso, Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

513 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

AMERICAN 

HIGHWAY 

USERS 

ALLIANCE 

The American Highway Users Alliance (The Highway Users) strongly supports the nomination of former NHTSA 

Administrator Nicole R. Nason to be the next Federal Highway Administrator. 

As the organization that represents the interests of millions of motorists, truckers, and others road users that fund our 

federal~aid highway program, the Highway Users stresses that only an exceptionally-qualified individual be 

confirmed as Federal Highway Administrator. Put simply, Ms. Nason fits the bill. 

M!>. Nason is a proven safety leader, whose past success at NHTSA and MADD in driving down road deaths gives 

us great confidence that she will make safety her top priority. With an average of more than I 00 Americans dying 

each day on our roads, Ms. Nason wiJI undoubtedly lead the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to expand its 

focus and investments on proven safety crash countermeasures. 

In addition, the future of highway and vehicle safety is converging, as connected and autonomous vehicles regulated 

by NHTSA will need to "read" the roads, where FHWA 's regulations establish minimum safety standards. Given 

this convergence, it is particularly smart to have a FHWA Administrator who is also a past leader at NHTSA and an 

expert in vehicle safety standards, as well as someone who is cognizant of the safety needs of a variety of road users 

and will keep them top of mind as technologies advance. 

Ms. Nason's more recent leadership at the Department of State, particularly in Overseas Building Operations, gives 

us further confidence in her qualifications to serve as Federal Highway Administrator. This experience has included 

support for expedited building projects of critical diplomatic importance to our country. Speedy, safe construction is 

also critical for improving our roads and bridges. As our roads age, they have become congested, Jess safe, and less 

comfoJiable for road users. We need to move quickly to fix and improve our highways and Ms. Nason's experience 

will help FHWA implement your future infrastructure and highway legislation with the necessary urgency. 

Finally, Ms. Nason has exhibited leadership as a role model for women's empowerment throughout her career. This 

benefits not only the Federal Highway Administration, but the transportation engineering professJOn as a whole, 

where women are often underrepresented in leading roles. 

On behalf of our alliance ofnon~profit associations, companies, and motoring clubs that represent millions of road 

users, we urge a speedy confirmation of Nicole Nason to be the next Federal Highway Administrator. 

1920 l Street. NW • Suite 525 • Washington. DC 20036 • 202.857.1200 (P) • 202.857.1220 (F) • www.highwoys.org 
146 


35944.116

~ ... AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS 

950 N. Glebe Aoad * Suite 210 * Arlington, VA* 22203-4181 ATA www.trucklng.org 

v. *--~-----------------------------------------------------

Chris Spear 

President & Chief Executive Officer 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment & 

Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

January 24, 2019 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment & 

Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The American Trucking Associations' is pleased to support the nomination of Nicole Nason to be the 

Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. Highways are the trucking industry's workplace, 

and FHWA plays a significant role in determining the safety and efficiency of this network. 

Ms. Nason's extensive experience in government, including with the Department of Transportation, will 

be a significant asset as manager of such a large and complex organization. Furthermore, her experience 

as a Capitol Hill staffer, and as Assistant Secretary of Government Affairs at the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, will be invaluable as Congress prepares to reauthorize the federal-aid highway program. 

Given that highway improvements play an outsized role in reducing crashes and mitigating crash impacts, 

Ms. Nason demonstrated a commitment to safety and had a record of success as Administrator of the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and we are confident that she will continue to promote 

policies that improve highway safety as FHW A Administrator. 

ATA believes that Ms. Nason will make an excellent Federal Highway Administrator, and urges the 

Committee to swiftly report the nomination favorably to the full Senate for consideration. 

Chris Spear 

1 American Trucking Associations is the largest national trade association for the trucking industry. Through a 

federation of 50 affiliated state trucking associations and industry-related conferences and councils, ATA is the 

voice of the industry America depends on most to move our nation's freight. Follow ATA on Twitter or 

on Facebook. Trucking Moves America Forward. 

I JBs~ts-l!::i,~ .. Office' 703-838-1804 *Cell' 980·230·9115 *FAX' 703-838-1994 * cspeor@trocklng.o'll 
147 


35944.117

January 24, 2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington. D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, 

The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), a national nonprofit association representing the 

highway safety offices of states and territories, supports the nomination of Ms. Nicole Nason to be 

Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 

Throughout her career, Ms. Nason has demonstrated a clear commitment to public service and, during her 

tenure as Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a dedication to 

advancing highway safety. The state highway safety offices had direct experience with Ms. Nason's 

leadership during this time, when she pursued a collegial approach to working with the states on the 

shared mission of saving lives and preventing injuries on our roads. 

As NHTSA Administrator, Ms. Nason also showed a clear understanding of the role that state agencies 

play in jointly deploying transportation programs, as well as the importance of proactively engaging key 

partners. GHSA expects that Ms. Nason will continue this approach as FHWA Administrator. 

The safety of the built environment is a key part of working towards zero traffic fatalities. FHWA's safety 

programs, including the Highway Safety Improvement Program, play an indispensable role in reducing 

roadway risks, especially considering the ongoing threat of speeding and increased fatalities among our 

most vulnerable roads users. GHSA looks forward to working with NHTSA and FHW A to ensure closer 

strategic collaboration to get more resources where they are needed the most. Ms. Nason's experience 

makes her well suited to reinforce this bridge between the two agencies. 

GHSA urges the Committee to act swiftly on Ms. Nason's nomination to fill this critical role at the 

FHWA. 

Sincerely, 

Darrin Grondel 

Chair, Governors Highway Safety Association 

Director, Washington Traffic Safety Commission 

CC: Senator James 1nhofe 

Senator Benjamin Cardin 

660 North Capitol Street, NW • Suite 220 • Washington, DC 20001·1534 + phone: 202-789-0942 • fax: 202-789-0946 

headquarters@ghsa.org • www.ghsa.org 
148 


35944.118

Senator Shelley Moore Capito 

Senator Bernard Sanders 

Senator Kevin Cramer 

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse 

Senator Mike Braun 

Senator Jeff Merkley 

Senator Mike Rounds 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 

Senator Dan Sullivan 

Senator Cory Booker 

Senator John Boozman 

Senator Edward Markey 

Senator Roger Wicker 

Senator Tammy Duckworth 

Senator Richard Shelby 

Senator Chris Van Hollen 

Senator Joni Ernst 

660 North Capitol Street, NW • Suite 220 • Washington, DC 20001-1534 • phone: 202-789-0942 + fax: 202-789-0946 

headquarters@ghsa.org + www.ghsa.org 
149 


35944.119

$fmadd" 

NO MORE VICTIMS 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving 

National Office 

madd.org 

1200 181

h Street,. NW 

Suite 700 

washington, DC 20036 

January 23, 2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Senate Environment & Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Senate Environment & Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510-6175 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, 

877.ASK.MAOD 

877 .MAOD.HELP victim support 

I write today on behalf of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in support of the Honorable Nicole Nason for the 

position of Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. 

Nicole has a long history of public service. As the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Nicole was a true leader of the highway safety community. MADD's Campaign to Eliminate Drunk 

Driving is our national and state priority for eliminating drunk driving in America. Nicole served as the first honorary 

chairman of our Campaign and was responsible for helping launch our initiatives to support law enforcement, ignition 

interlocks and new highway safety technologies. 

In addition to her leadership on drunk driving issues, Nicole oversaw new seatbelt rules for school buses. 

rulemakings for electronic stability control systems and new car seat safety regulations. 

Following her tenure at NHTSA, Nicole served as a member of our national board of directors where she helped 

shape state and national policy positions for MADD. During this time, MADD achieved record gains for passing ignition 

interlock legislation across the country as well as working to codify our Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving as part of 

federal law. 

Currently, Nicole is once again serving our country as Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Administration at the 

U.S. Department of State. 

Nicole is a true champion of highway safety and will be an asset to the Department of Transportation as the 

Federal Highway Administration Administrator. On behalf of MADD. I wholeheartedly endorse her for this position. If 

you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact J.T. Griftin, MADlYs Chief Government Affairs Officer. at 202-

688-1193. 

Thank you and best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

Helen Witty 

National President, MADD 
150 


35944.120

Mary E. Peters 

US Transportation Secretary 2006-2009 

January 24, 2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

United States Senate United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso/Ranking Member Carper: 

As the former Secretary of Transportation serving former President George W. Bush, and before that his 

Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, I write this letter to offer my full support for the 

nomination of Nicole R. Nason to be the next Federal Highway Administrator. 

I have worked closely with Nicole both in and out of government service, and am fully confident in her 

ability to faithfully and dutifully serve the best interests of the people of the United States in this role as 

head of the nation's highway infrastructure program. 

She understands the importance of a strong working relationship with the United States Congress, is 

committed to the mission of protecting the public trust, and will be an honest broker when administering 

the programs and funds states rely upon to keep important infrastructure projects on schedule and on 

budget. 

Nicole's time at the U.S. Department of Transportation prepared her well for the challenges we face as 

we tackle the growing list of infrastructure priorities. She understands how the programs work, 

appreciates the Congress' interest in those programs, and most importantly, their impact on the continued 

success of the American economy. 

I can think of no finer choice for the position of FHWA Administrator than Nicole R. Nason. I urge the 

Senate to confirm her nomination as soon as possible, so that she may begin to work closely with you 

and others in this body, as well as in the U.S. House, on a new infrastructure package so vital to the 

health and well-being of our great nation. 

Sincerely, 

~CfJ~ 

Mary E. Peters 

Mary E. Peters Consulting Group, LLC 8323 W. Via Montoya Drive, Peoria, AZ 85383-2019 

Office 623.825.4492 Mobile 623.680.5650 Fax 623.825.4492 
151 


35944.121

North American Concrete Alliance 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

Majority Leader 

S-230, The Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

January 24, 2019 

The Honorable Charles Schumer 

Minority Leader 

S-22, The Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

Ranking Member 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer and Senators Barrasso and Carper: 

Members of the North American Concrete Alliance (NACA) strongly support the nomination of Nicole 

Nason to serve as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. 

Formed in 2004, NACA is a coalition of twelve concrete and cement-related Associations dedicated to 

addressing industry-wide priorities in the areas of research, safety, education, economic recovery and 

government affairs. Cement and concrete product manufacturing directly and indirectly employs 

approximately half a million people; our collective industries contribute approximately $100 billion to the 

economy. Our member Associations represent businesses and talented workers in all fifty states. NACA 

places an emphasis on advocating for increased and efficient federal investment in surface transportation. 

Nicole Nason has an extensive list of leadership skills and professional qualifications making her an ideal 

candidate for this post. If confirmed, she would bring years of experience and knowledge to the role. Given 

her extensive background in transportation, Nason will be an asset to the broader transportation community 

as she works to advance reauthorization of the FAST Act and a larger infrastructure bill. Both these pieces 

of legislation are important to strengthening our federal highway system while creating American jobs and 

spurring economic growth. 

Additionally, Ms. Nason's experience working with Congress and the White House during the 

reauthorization debate that culminated in the passage of SAFETEA-LU in 2005 will equip her with 

knowledge to help inform the. debate surrounding reauthorization of the FAST Act. Her years of 

transportation experience uniquely qualifies her to become to the next Administrator of the Federal 

Highway Administration. NACA respectfully asks you to support the nomination of Nicole Nason to serve 

as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. 

Sincerely, 

American Concrete Pavement Association 

American Concrete Pipe Association 

American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association 

American Concrete Pumping Association 

Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute 

Concrete Foundations Association 

National Concrete Masonry Association 

National Precast Concrete Association 

National Ready Mixed Concrete Association 

Portland Cement Association 

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute 

Tilt-Up Concrete Association 
152 


35944.122

PC/h. Since 1916 

AmeriGt's Cement Manufacturers·· 

January 24, 20 19 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

Majority Leader 

S-230, The Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

PortlandCementAssotiatien 

llSOConnec!JtutAvenueNW,Sunesoo 

Washtngton, 0(20036-4104 

202408.9494 Fax202.4080877 

www.cement.org 

The Honorable Chuck Schumer 

Minority Leader 

S-221, The Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer, Chairman Barrasso. and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) supports President Trump's nomination of Nicole Nason to be the 

Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A). PCA believes it is important for the FHW A to 

have an Administrator with a vision to meet the demands being placed on the nation's roads, bridges, and 

tunnels. 

Founded in 1916, PCA is the premier policy, research, education, and market intelligence organization serving 

America's cement manufacturers. PCA 's members represent 93 percent of the United States' cement production 

capacity and have facilities in all 50 states. Cement and concrete product manufacturing, directly and indirectly, 

employs approximately 600,000 people in our country, and our collective industries contribute over $100 billion 

to the U.S. economy. Portland cement is the fundamental ingredient in concrete. PCA promotes safety, 

sustainability, and innovation in all aspects of construction, fosters continued improvement in cement 

manufacturing and distribution, and encourages economic growth and sound infrastructure investment. 

Nason's extensive transportation policy experience and leadership skills make her an ideal candidate to be the 

Administrator of the FHWA. If confirmed, she would bring her experience working with Congress and the 

White House during the reauthorization debate that culminated in the passage of SAFETEA-LU in 2005. This 

experience will be especially valuable as Congress begins to work on reauthorization of the FAST Act. Along 

with reauthorization, it will be important to help identify a long-term funding solution for the Highway Trust 

Fund so states can address the nation's maintenance backlog and build a transportation system that meets the 

demands of the 21" century. 

PCA believes it is critical to move on the nomination of Nicole Nason to be Administrator of the Federal 

Highway Administration. 

Sincerely, rtffVr 

Rachel Derby 

Vice-President, Government Affairs 

Portland Cement Association 
153 


35944.123

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION 

OF' STATE HIGHWAY AND 

TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

AASHID 

January 25, 2019 

The Honorable Sen. John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

CARLCB BRACERAS, P.E., PRESIDENT 

EXECUTIVE OIAE:CTOA, UTAH 0EPAATM£NT Or' TRANSPORTATION 

JiM TYMON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

444 NORTI-I CAPITO!.. STR££T NW. 6UJT£ 249, WABH!NOTON, OC 20001 

(202) 624·$800 • F"AX: {202) 624·5806 • WWW.TRANBPORTATION,ORG 

The Honorable Sen. Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

On behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), I'm 

writing to express the Association's utmost support for Nicole R. Nason to be approved by the Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works and confirmed by the full Senate to become the next 

Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. 

AASHTO is a nonprofit, nonpartisan association representing the state transportation departments (state 

DOTs) in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. We represent our member departments 

with respect to all five transportation modes: air, highways, public transportation, rail, and water. Our 

primary goal is to foster the development, operation, and maintenance of an integrated national 

transportation system. 

As Congress prepares to reauthorize the federal surface transportation programs and consider an 

infrastructure investment package, we need an experienced federal administrator with a deep 

understanding of transportation policy to lead the Federal Highway Administration. Ms. Nason's 

experience as Assistant Secretary for Government Affairs at the U.S. Department of Transportation 

makes her well suited to work with Congress to help achieve these goals. 

State Departments of Transportation are committed to working toward a goal of zero traffic fatalities. 

During Ms. Nason's tenure as NHTSA Administrator, highway fatalities reached an all-time low and seat 

belt use rates reached a higher level than they had been in the past. Ms. Nason is a proven safety leader, 

and I am confident she will work closely with State Departments of Transportation as Federal Highway 

Administrator to achieve this important goal of zero traffic fatalities on our nation's roads. 

Thank you for the opportunity to support Ms. Nason's nomination, and we look forward to continue 

working with you. 

Sincerely, /)_ 7 ~ymo~ Executive Director 
154 


35944.124

• 

«.~~;~1AIADA Amencan International Automobile Dealers Assoc>ation 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

January 25, 2019 

United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, 

The American International Automobile Dealers Association would like to express its support for the 

nomination of Nicole R. Nason for Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. We 

respectfully request the Committee move swiftly to consider Ms. Nason and urge her confirmation. 

Ms. Nason has extensive leadership and management experience in both the legislative branch and 

the executive branch. Specifically she has already served with distinction at the Department of 

Transportation in a prior administration. During that time she was the Administrator of the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and was twice awarded their gold medal, the 

department's highest honor. Ms. Nason's record during her tenure as Administrator of NHTSA speaks 

for itself, from safety improvements to regulatory harmonization. 

Ms. Nason has proven herself a capable manager and leader in her previous roles. Her experience 

would serve her and the American traveling public well as Administrator of the Federal Highway 

Administration. 

Sincerely, 

~J~ Cody Lusk 

President and CEO 

AIADA 

American International Automobile Dealers Association 

500 Montgomery Street, Suite 800, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 

T· 701_1:\1CJ.7ROO • F: 701 C\1CJ 7FI10 
155 


35944.125

American Road & Transportation 

Builders Association 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

United States Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Barrasso: 

250 E Street, S W 

Sulte900 

Washmgton D.C 20024 

January 25, 2019 

p 202.289 4434 

F 202 289 4435 

Wartbaorg 

The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) is very pleased to endorse 

the nomination of Nicole Nason as administrator of the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) within the U.S. Department ofTransportation. We urge the Environment & Public 

Works Committee to expeditiously consider and favorably report her nomination. 

ARTBA and its members interact with FHWA on all levels of the agency- in Washington and 

across the country- on many issues. The administrator sets the tone for these collaborations 

with the transportation construction industry, as well as with state agencies. ARTBA believes 

the next administrator should champion safety, efficiency and innovation in the design and 

construction of highway improvements. This individual should also maintain an ongoing 

dialogue with industry through the rulemaking process, policy work groups and personal 

interaction. We are confident Nicole will meet these criteria. 

She is an experienced federal government executive who has served in several high-profile, 

Senate-confirmed positions during her career, including assistant secretary of transportation 

for government affairs, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

and, most recently, assi.rtant secretary of state for administration. In our view, Nicole Nason is 

well prepared to lead FHWA and its team of career and non-career professionals, while taking 

on the challenge of delivering the federal-aid highway program in partnership with the states 

and industry. 

Thank you for considering ARTBA's views on Nicole Nason's nomination for this critical position. 

Sincerely, 

David C. Bauer 

President & CEO 
156 


35944.126

GlobalAutomakers 0 

January 25, 2019 

Chairman John Barrasso 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Ranking Member Thomas Carper 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Association of Global Automakers (Global Automakers) is pleased to support the 

nomination of Nicole Nason as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. 

During her tenure as Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

Ms. Nason consistently demonstrated strong leadership skills. Working with a variety of 

stakeholders, Ms. Nason advanced motor vehicle safety through a variety of vehicle and traffic 

safety programs that continue to save lives on America's roads today. 

Transformational technologies, specifically those that enable vehicles to become increasingly 

automated and connected, will revolutionize transportation in America. Global Automakers is 

confident that Ms. Nason's experience and vision will greatly advance the safety, 

environmental and mobility benefits of these technologies tllrough our national infrastructure 

programs and deliver these benefits for the American people. 

Global Automakers encourages the Committee to confirm Ms. Nason and to move her 

nomination offorward in an expeditious manner. 

Sincerely, 

John Bozzella 

President & CEO, Global Automakers 

At~aoci.ation of Global Automakera, Inc. 1050 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20001 
157 


35944.127

NADA 

January 25, 2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

On behalf of the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), representing more than 16,000 

franchised new car and truck dealerships that employ 1.1 million people, I am writing in strong support 

of the nomination of Ms. Nicole R. Nason to be Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA). 

Ms. Nason has a strong record of service to our country. Most notably, Ms. Nason was confirmed by the 

Senate in 2003 as an Assistant Secretary of Congressional Affairs at the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, where she was the lead Administration negotiator for the historic SAFETEA-LU bill [P.L 

109-59]. Ms. Nason was then confirmed by the Senate in 2006 to serve as Administrator of the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, where she successfully administered the programs Congress 

enacted as part of SAFETEA-LU. This landmark legislation, coupled with Ms. Nason's leadership, resulted 

in a reduction of highway deaths for six consecutive years (2006-11). 

Ms. Nason has a demonstrated record of working cooperatively with Congress on a bipartisan basis, and 

we are confident that she will serve the nation well, particularly if Congress considers a comprehensive 

infrastructure bill. Additionally, Ms. Nason's considerable experience leading a fed era I agency at the 

Department of Transportation and managing a dedicated federal workforce makes her a superb choice 

to lead FHWA. 

On behalf of America's franchised auto dealers, NADA urges the Committee to swiftly consider and 

confirm Ms. Nason to be Administrator of FHWA. Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Peter K. Welch 

President & CEO 

National Automobile Dealers Association 
158 


35944.128

~ 

~' AUTO ALLIANCE 

DRIVING INNOVATION' 

U.S. Senator John Barrasso 

Chairman 

January 28. 2019 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington. D.C. 20510 

U.S. Senator Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

803 7th Street N.W" Sulte 300 I Washmgton, DC 20001 

202.326.5500 ! www.autoalliance.org 

MITCH BAINWOl Pres1dent&CEO 

On behalf of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. and our 12 member 

companies representing over 70 percent of light-duty vehicles sold in the United States. 

I want to express our strong support for the president's nomination of Nicole Nason to 

be the next Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 

As both of you know well, FHW A is a key modal agency within the U.S. 

Department of Transportation responsible for overseeing and coordinating infrastructure 

investment and safety improvements across the country. The Auto Alliance and our 

members worked closely with Ms. Nason when she served as Administrator of the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and we believe she is 

strongly equipped to lead FHWA, particularly now when new mobility innovations will 

require greater public policy and regulatory integration between vehicles and 

infrastructure. 

Without question, today is an exciting time in the transportation sector due to the 

tremendous innovations in mobility. for the auto sector, our members continue to make 

significant investments in vehicle safety and efficiency improvements. These 

technological advancements will provide tremendous benefits to vehicle owners, the 

driving public, the environment. and our nation's broader economy. 

Although overall fatalities on our nation's roadways remain far too high, new 

driver assist safety technologies are helping to prevent vehicle crashes or reduce the 

severity of roadway accidents. The development and deployment of self-driving 

BMW G<O"P FCA ~ 1!!!1 
159 


35944.129

vehicles also will generate significant progress in the reduction of vehicle crashes and 

fatalities. As such, the Department of Transportation has a unique opportunity to help 

shape the future of transportation safety and Ms. Nason is uniquely qualified to provide 

key insights and leadership ensuring that our nation's transportation infrastructure. and 

regulatory policies are updated to help further improve highway safety. 

As the EPW Committee prepares for Ms. Nason's nomination hearing 

tomorrow, I want to reiterate that Ms. Nason brings a strong background in 

transportation policy- as was witnessed by the Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Committee's handling of her nomination to be NHTSA Administrator and the full 

Senate's confirmation by voice vote in 2003. Ms. Nason's strong leadership abilities 

and commitment to public service would be key assets to Secretary Chao and the entire 

staff at the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

Sincerely, 

Mitch Bainwol 

President and CEO 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. 
160 


35944.130

The Honorable John Barrasso 

United States Senate 

Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

TORINE CREPPY 

1255 23'' Street, NW 

Suite 400 

Washington, DC 20037 

202.662.0638 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

United States Senate 

Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

I am President of Safe Kids Worldwide (SKW) and personally endorse the nomination of Nicole R. Nason 

to be the next Administrator for the Federal Highway Administration. Safe Kids Worldwide is a nonprofit 

organization working to help families and communities keep kids safe from preventable injuries, the 

number one cause of death of children in the United States. Throughout the world, almost one million 

children die of an injury each year, and almost every one of these tragedies is preventable. Safe Kids 

works with an extensive network of more than 400 coalitions in the United States and with partners in 

more than 30 countries to reduce traffic injuries, drownings, falls, burns, poisonings and more. 

The foundation of our work over 31 years has been protecting children in motor vehicles, especially in 

car seats. Working with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Safe Kids is the 

entity that certifies child passenger safety technicians. Today, there are more than 42,000 of these 

technicians working to keep kids safe as passengers in motor vehicles. I served as the Director of the 

Buckle Up campaign when Ms. Nason assumed her position as NHTSA Administrator. As soon as she 

started her job as NHTSA Administrator in 2006, Ms. Nason called Safe Kids, offering to work with us. 

Ms. Nason was a strong ally and supporter of our mission during her time at NHTSA. Ms. Nason 

demonstrated her commitment to child passenger safety by becoming a certified child passenger safety 

technician in one of our classes. Nicole sat through the entire course which spans over five intense days. 

She participated in numerous child safety seat installation events. 

Transportation safety is second nature to Ms. Nason, and she has demonstrated that throughout her 

career. In addition to her commitment to Safe Kids, she has also served two terms on the national board 

of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Today, Safe Kids works with FHWA on transportation issues and I 

have every confidence that she will again apply her commitment to safety there. We urge the 

Committee an.d-,enate to confirm her nomination. 

Sincerelyr ~ g-~ 

!lD;l,t/;!l ~ rine Creppy 

President 

Safe Kids Worldwide 
161 


35944.131

Mary E. Peters 

US Transportation Secretary 2006-2009 

January 24, 2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

United States Senate United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso/Ranking Member Carper: 

As the former Secretary of Transportation serving former President George W. Bush, and before that his 

Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, I write this letter to offer my full support for the 

nomination of Nicole R. Nason to be the next Federal Highway Administrator. 

I have worked closely with Nicole both in and out of government service, and am fully confident in her 

ability to faithfully and dutifully serve the best interests of the people of the United States in this role as 

head of the nation's highway infrastructure program. 

She understands the importance of a strong working relationship wrth the Untted States Congress, is 

committed to the mission of protecting the public trust, and will be an honest broker when administering 

the programs and funds states rely upon to keep important infrastructure projects on schedule and on 

budget. 

Nicole's time at the U.S. Department of Transportation prepared her well for the challenges we face as 

we tackle the growing list of infrastructure priorities. She understands how the programs work, 

appreciates the Congress' interest in those programs, and most importantly, their impact on the continued 

success of the American economy. 

I can think of no finer choice for the position of FHWA Administrator than Nicole R. Nason. I urge the 

Senate to confirm her nomination as soon as possible, so that she may begin to work closely with you 

and others in this body, as well as in the U.S. House, on a new infrastructure package so vital to the 

health and well-being of our great nation. 

Sincerely, 

~C.fJ~ 

Mary E. Peters 

Mary E. Peters Consulting Group, LLC 8323 W. Via Montoya Drive, Peoria, AZ 85383-2019 

Office 623.825.4492 Mobile 623.680.5650 Fax 623.825.4492 
162 


35944.132

January 24,2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso, Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper, Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

513 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

AMERICAN 

HIGHWAY 

USERS 

ALLIANCE 

The American Highway Users Alliance (The Highway Users) strongly supports the nomination of former NHTSA 

Administrator Nicole R. Nason to be the next Federal Highway Administrator. 

As the organization that represents the interests of millions of motorists, truckers, and others road users that fund our 

federal~aid highway program, the Highway Users stresses that only an exceptionally-qualified individual be 

confirmed as Federal Highway Administrator. Put simply, Ms. Nason fits the bill. 

Ms. Nason is a proven safety leader, whose past success at NHTSA and MADD in driving down road deaths gives 

us great confidence that she will make safety her top priorJty. With an average of more than 100 Americans dying 

each day on our roads, Ms. Nason will undoubtedly lead the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to expand its 

focus and investments on proven safety crash countermeasures. 

In addition, the future of highway and vehicle safety is converging, as connected and autonomous vehicles regulated 

by NHTSJ\ will need to "read" the roads, where FHWA 's regulations establish minimum safety standards. Given 

this convergence, it is particularly smart to have a FHWA Administrator who is also a past leader at NHTSA and an 

expert in vehicle safety standards, as well as someone who is cognizant of the safety needs of a variety of road users 

and will keep them top of mind as technologies advance. 

Ms. Nason's more recent leadership at the Department of State, particularly in Overseas Building Operations, gives 

us further confidence in her qualifications to serve as Federal Highway Administrator. This experience has included 

support for expedited building projects of critical diplomatic importance to our country. Speedy, safe construction is 

also critkal for improving our roads and bridges. As our roads age, they have become congested, less safe, and less 

comfortable for road users_ We need to move quickly to fix and improve our highways and Ms. Nason's experience 

will help FHWA implement your future infrastructure and highway legislation with the necessary urgency. 

FinaUy, Ms. Nason has exhibited leadership as a role model for women's empowerment throughout her career. This 

benefits not only the Federal Highway Administration, but the transportation engineering profession as a whole, 

where women are often underrepresented in leading roles. 

On behalf of our alliance of non-profit associations, companies, and motoring clubs that represent millions of road 

users, we urge a speedy confirmation of Nicole Nason to be the next Federal Highway Administrator. 

Sincerely, 

......... J 1;"!-, ";IL~7 / . . .r r· 

-J;//..!2~/") Gre,FY J1· Cohen 

Presidft & CEO 

1920 L Street, NW • Suite 525 • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.857.1200 (P) • 202.857.1220 (F) • www.highways.org 
163 


35944.133

$fmadd' 

NO MORE VICTIMS 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving 

National Office 

madd.org 

1200 1St" Street, NW 

Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20036 

January 23, 2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Senate Environment & Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Senate Environment & Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510-6175 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, 

877.ASK.MAOD 

877.MAOD.HELP victim support 

I write today on behalf of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in support of the Honorable Nicole Nason for the 

position of Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. 

Nicole has a long history of public service. As the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Nicole was a true leader of the highway safety community. MADD's Campaign to Eliminate Drunk 

Driving is our national and state priority for eliminating drunk driving in America. Nicole served as the first honorary 

chairman of our Campaign and was responsible for helping launch our initiatives to support law enforcement, ignition 

interlocks and new highway safety technologies. 

In addition to her leadership on drunk driving issues. Nicole oversaw new seatbelt rules for school buses, 

rulemakings for electronic stability control systems and new car seat safety regulations. 

Following her tenure at NHTSA, Nicole served as a member of our national board of directors where she helped 

shape state and national policy positions for MADD. During this time, MADD achieved record gains for passing ignition 

interlock legislation across the country as well as working to codify our Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving as part of 

federal law. 

Currently. Nicole is once again serving our country as Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Administration at the 

U.S. Department of State. 

Nicole is a true champion of highway safety and wi!l be an asset to the Department of Transportation as the 

Federal Highway Administration Administrator. On behalfofMADD, I wholeheartedly endorse her for this position. If 

you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact J.T. Griffin, MADD's Chief Government Affairs Officer, at 202~ 

688-1193. 

Thank you and best wishes. 

Sincerely. 

Helen Witty 

National President, MA DD 
164 


35944.134

North American Concrete Alliance 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

Majority Leader 

S-230, The Capitol 

Washington, D.C, 20510 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

January 24, 2019 

The Honorable Charles Schumer 

Minority Leader 

S-22, The Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

Ranking Member 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer and Senators Barrasso and Carper: 

Members of the North American Concrete Alliance (NACA) strongly support the nomination ofNicole 

Nason to serve as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. 

Formed in 2004, NACA is a coalition of twelve concrete and cement-related Associations dedicated to 

addressing industry-wide priorities in the areas of research, safety, education, economic recovery and 

government affairs. Cement and concrete product manufacturing directly and indirectly employs 

approximately half a million people; our collective industries contribute approximately $100 billion to the 

economy. Our member Associations represent businesses and talented workers in all fifty states. NACA 

places an emphasis on advocating for increased and efficient federal investment in surface transportation. 

Nicole Nason has an extensive list of leadership skills and professional qualifications making her an ideal 

candidate for this post. If confirmed, she would bring years of experience and knowledge to the role. Given 

her extensive background in transportation, Nason will be an asset to the broader transportation community 

as she works to advance reauthorization of the FAST Act and a larger infrastructure bill. Both these pieces 

of legislation are important to strengthening our federal highway system while creating American jobs and 

spurring economic growth. 

Additionally, Ms. Nason's experience working with Congress and the White House during the 

reauthorization debate that culminated in the passage ofSAFETEA-LU in 2005 will equip her with 

knowledge to help inform the debate surrounding reauthorization of the FAST Act. Her years of 

transportation experience uniquely qualifies her to become to the next Administrator of the Federal 

Highway Administration. NACA respectfully asks you to support the nomination of Nicole Nason to serve 

as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. 

Sincerely, 

American Concrete Pavement Association 

American Concrete Pipe Association 

American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association 

American Concrete Pumping Association 

Concrete Reinforcing Steel institute 

Concrete Foundations Association 

National Concrete Masonry Association 

National Precast Concrete Association 

National Ready Mixed Concrete Association 

Portland Cement Association 

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute 

Tilt-Up Concrete Association 
165 


35944.135

PC~. Since 1916 

America's Cem('nt Manufacturers~ 

January 24,2019 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

Majority Leader 

S-230, The Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

PortlandCementAssodation 

t150Conne(IJCutAvenueNW,SuiteSOO 

0(20036-4104 

Fax202.408.0877 

www cement org 

The Honorable Chuck Schumer 

Minority Leader 

S-221, The Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer, Chairman Barrasso, and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) supports President Trump's nomination of Nicole Nason to be the 

Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). PCA believes it is important for the FHWA to 

have an Administrator with a vision to meet the demands being placed on the nation's roads, bridges, and 

tunnels. 

Founded in 1916, PCA is the premier policy, research. education, and market intelligence organization serving 

America's cement manufacturers. PCA's members represent 93 percent of the United States· cement production 

capacity and have facilities in all 50 states. Cement and concrete product manufacturing, directly and indirectly, 

employs approximately 600,000 people in our country, and our collective industries contribute over $100 billion 

to the U.S. economy. Portland cement is the fundamental ingredient in concrete. PCA promotes safety, 

sustainability, and innovation in all aspects of construction, fosters continued improvement in cement 

manufacturing and distribution, and encourages economic growth and sound infrastructure investment. 

Nason's extensive transportation policy experience and leadership skills make her an ideal candidate to be the 

Administrator of the FHW A. If confirmed, she would bring her experience working with Congress and the 

White House during the reauthorization debate that culminated in the passage ofSAFETEA-LU in 2005. This 

experience will be especially valuable as Congress begins to work on reauthorization of the FAST Act. Along 

with reauthorization, it will be important to help identify a long-term funding solution for the Highway Trust 

Fund so states can address the nation's maintenance backlog and build a transportation system that meets the 

demands of the 21" century. 

PCA believes it is critical to move on the nomination of Nicole Nason to be Administrator of the Federal 

Highway Administration. 

Sincerely, 1J!Jr 

Rachel Derby 

Vice-President, Government Affairs 

Portland Cement Association 
166 


35944.136

American Road & Transportation 

Builders Association 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

United States Senate 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Barrasso: 

250 E Street, S W 

Su1te 000 

Washmgton D.C 20024 

January 25, 2019 

p 202.289 4434 

F 202 289 4435 

W artbaorg 

The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) is very pleased to endorse 

the nomination of Nicole Nason as administrator of the Federal Highway Administration 

{FHWA) within the U.S. Department ofTransportation. We urge the Environment & Public 

Works Committee to expeditiously consider and favorably report her nomination. 

ARTBA and its members interact with FHWA on all levels of the agency- in Washington and 

across the country- on many issues. The administrator sets the tone for these collaborations 

with the transportation construction industry, as well as with state agencies. ARTBA believes 

the next administrator should champion safety, efficiency and innovation in the design and 

construction of highway improvements. This individual should also maintain an ongoing 

dialogue with industry through the rulemaking process, policy work groups and personal 

interaction. We are confident Nicole will meet these criteria. 

She is an experienced federal government executive who has served in several high-profile, 

Senate-confirmed positions during her career, including assistant secretary of transportation 

for government affairs, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

and, most recently, assistant secretary of state for administration. In our view, Nicole Nason is 

well prepared to lead FHWA and Its team of career and non-career professionals, while taking 

on the challenge of delivering the federal-aid highway program In partnership with the states 

and industry. 

Thank you for considering ARTBA's views on Nicole Nason's nomination for this critical position. 

Sincerely, 

David C. Bauer 

President & CEO 
167 


35944.137

SffPHEN E, SANDHERR. Chtd Ext:-<u!ivt' Offitt•r 

January 18. 2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

AGC of America THE ASSOCIATED CENERAl CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA 

Quality People. Quality Projects. 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

RE: AGC Support for Nomination of Ms. Nicole Nason to FHWA Administrator 

Dear Mr. Chairman/and Ranking Member: 

The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) strongly supports the nomination of Ms. 

Nicole Nason to serve as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. AGC is a 

national association representing more than 27,000 construction industry businesses with chapters 

and members in every state, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Many of our member 

companies are involved in the construction and reconstruction of the nation's infrastructure. 

including our National Highway System. All of our members believe that a strong partnership 

between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), state departments of transportation and 

the construction industry is the key to providing the nation with needed transportation 

infrastructure improvements in a safe, innovative, efficient and cost-effective fashion. 

Ms. Nason has an exemplary background in transportation, having served as the Administrator of 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NTSHA) from 2006-2008 in the George W. 

Bush Administration. Prior to that, she worked as Assistant Secretary for Government Affairs at 

the U.S. Department of Transportation, where she worked closely with Congress on enacting 

SAFETEA-LU transportation authorization legislation. AGC has had the pleasure of working 

with Ms. Nason in her current position at the Department of State on issues related to the 

construction of U.S. Embassies, where she again has shown herself to be a highly capable and 

effective leader. 

As the 1161

h Congress prepares to work with the Trump Administration on legislation to return 

the nation's infrastructure to world class status. it is important to have a strong leader at the helm 

of the Federal Highway Administration. Ms. Nason is a superb choice to fulfill FHW A's 

leadership role in improving mobility on our nation's highways. As such, AGC urges the Senate 

to quickly confirm her nomination. 

Sincerely, 

?jt:CSIStephen E. Sandherr 

Chief Executive Officer 

The Associated General Contractors of America 
168 


35944.138

~ .. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS 

950 N. Glebe Road *Suite 210 *Arlington, VA* 22203-4181 ATA www.trucklng.org 

v. *--~-------------------------------------------------- Chris Spear 

President & Chtef Executive Officer 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment & 

Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

January 24, 2019 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment & 

Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The American Trucking Associations' is pleased to support the nomination of Nicole Nason to be the 

Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. Highways are the trucking industry's workplace. 

and FHWA plays a significant role in determining the safety and efficiency of this network. 

Ms. Nason's extensive experience in government, including with the Department of Transportation. will 

be a significant asset as manager of such a large and complex organization. Furthermore, her experience 

as a Capitol Hill staffer, and as Assistant Secretary of Government Affairs at the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, will be invaluable as Congress prepares to reauthorize the federal-aid highway program. 

Given that highway improvements play an outsized role in reducing crashes and mitigating crash impacts, 

Ms. Nason demonstrated a commitment to safety and had a record of success as Administrator of the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and we are confident that she will continue to promote 

policies that improve highway safety as FHWA Administrator. 

ATA believes that Ms. Nason will make an excellent Federal Highway Administrator, and urges the 

Committee to swiftly report the nomination favorably to the full Senate for consideration. 

Chris Spear 

1 American Trucking Associations is the largest national trade association for the trucking industry. Through a 

federation of 50 affiliated state trucking associations and industry-related conferences and councils, ATA is the 

voice of the industry America depends on most to move our nation's freight. Follow ATA on Twitter or 

on Facebook. Trucking Moves America Forward. 

I lSs~S~lt'!~ ~Office' 703-838-1804 *Cell: 980-230-9115 *FAX: 703-838-1994 * cspear@trucklng.org 
169 


35944.139

.i 

January 24, 2019 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, 

The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), a national nonprofit association representing the 

highway safety offices of states and territories, supports the nomination of Ms. Nicole Nason to be 

Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A). 

Throughout her career, Ms. Nason has demonstrated a clear commitment to public service and, during her 

tenure as Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a dedication to 

advancing highway safety. The state highway safety offices had direct experience with Ms. Nason's 

leadership during this time, when she pursued a collegial approach to working with the states on the 

shared mission of saving lives and preventing injuries on our roads. 

As NHTSA Administrator, Ms. Nason also showed a clear understanding of the role that state agencies 

play in jointly deploying transportation programs, as well as the importance of proactively engaging key 

partners. GHSA expects that Ms. Nason will continue this approach as FHWA Administrator. 

The safety of the built environment is a key part of working towards zero traffic fatalities. FHWA's safety 

programs, including the Highway Safety Improvement Program, play an indispensable role in reducing 

roadway risks, especially considering the ongoing threat of speeding and increased fatalities among our 

most vulnerable roads users. GHSA looks forward to working with NHTSA and FHW A to ensure closer 

strategic collaboration to get more resources where they are needed the most Ms. Nason's experience 

makes her well suited to reinforce this bridge between the two agencies. 

GHSA urges the Committee to act swiftly on Ms. Nason's nomination to fill this critical role at the 

FHWA. 

Sincerely, 

Darrin Grande! 

Chair, Governors Highway Safety Association 

Director, Washington Traffic Safety Commission 

CC: Senator James lnhofe 

Senator Benjamin Cardin 

660NorthCapitoiStreet,NW + Suite220 • Washington, DC 20001·1534 • phone: 202-789-0942 +fax: 202-789·0946 

headquarters@ghsa,org + www .ghsa.org 
170 


35944.140

Senator Shelley Moore Capito 

Senator Bernard Sanders 

Senator Kevin Cramer 

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse 

Senator Mike Braun 

Senator Jeff Merkley 

Senator Mike Rounds 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 

Senator Dan Sullivan 

Senator Cory Booker 

Senator John Boozman 

Senator Edward Markey 

Senator Roger Wicker 

Senator Tammy Duckworth 

Senator Richard Shelby 

Senator Chris Van Hollen 

Senator Joni Ernst 

660 North Capitol Street, NW + Suite 220 t W"hington. DC 20001·1534 + phone: 202·189·0942 • fax: 202·189·0946 

headquarters@ghsa.org • www.ghsa.org 
171 


35944.142

U.S. TRAVEL 

ASSOCIATION 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The U.S. Travel Association strongly supports the nomination of Nicole R. Nason to be the 

Administrator for the Federal Highway Administration. The U.S. Travel Association is the 

national, non-profit organization that represents the broad spectrum of 

America's travel and tourism industry. 

Nicole has extensive government experience and is a transportation leader. In the Geroge W. 

Bush Administration, she served as the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. While at NHTSA, Nicole was able to immediately make a difference by 

becoming the first ever Administrator to become a certified child passenger safety technician. 

More importantly, highway fatalities reached an all-time low under her leadership. 

Nicole was also able to make important strides to improve safety by thoughtful rulemakings on 

electronic stability control and the first ever rule guiding seat belts on school buses. In addition, 

she led bilateral negotiations with the Chinese government on motor vehicle regulations. 

Recently, Nicole has been putting her skills to work at the Department of State. After initially 

serving as a Senior Advisor, Secretary Tillerson appointed her as the Assistant Secretary of 

State, Bureau of Administration. There, she is responsible for all matters relating to our nations 

embassies. 

I am confident that Nicole will once again excel at FHWA and provide the agency with much 

needed leadership and hope the Senate will quickly confirm her nomination. 

Sincerely, 

U.S. TRAVEL ASSOCIATION TEL 202 408 8422 FAX 202 408 1255 

1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 450 Washington, DC 20005-3934 ustravel.org 
172 

Æ 


35944.143

Among Required 

Provisions, about ThreeQuarters of State DOTs 

Reported That 

"Programmatic 

Agreements" Helped 

Speed Up Highway 

Projects, While the Effects 

Are Mixed for Other 

Provisions 

programmatic agreements with their FHWA division Further, five 

state DOTs reported that the Early Coordination Activities in 

Environmental Review Process provision had no effect because they 

already had a similar coordination process in place. Some states used 

such a process at their own initiative and others in conjunction with their 

FHWA division office." 

Of the 12 required provisions-which fall into the Administrative and 

Coordination Change category-only the Programmatic Agreements for 

Efficient Environmental Review provision was reported by a majority of 

state DOTs (39) to have sped up project delivery (see fig. 3) For 

example, officials at the Mississippi DOT reported that a programmatic 

agreement with the FHWA division office can allow it to save 6 to 8 

months when processing categorical exclusions for projects with minimal 

right-of-way acquisition. They explained that they no longer had to wait for 

the FHWA division office to process the categorical exclusion. As 

previously discussed, prior to 2012, FHWA actively encouraged, but did 

not require, programmatic agreements between state DOTs and FHWA 

division offices. In interviews and optional comments from the survey, 

officials reported that programmatic agreements, both those entered into 

before and after the enactment of the provision, had sped up project 

delivery. We did not determine the number of state DOTs that attributed 

the speed up in project delivery to the 2012 provision, as opposed to 

those who attributed it to the earlier programmatic agreements with their 

FHWA division offices. All of the required provisions reportedly sped up 

project delivery for at least 4 state DOTs. 

28The Eliminating the Documentation and Prior Approval Requirement for Categorical 

Exclusion for Bridge Projects at Railway~Highway Crossings provision designates bridge 

rehabHitation, reconstruction. or replacement or the construction of grade separation to 

replace existing at~grade railroad crossings, as a categoncal exclusion. The Eliminatrng 

the Documentation and Pnor Approval Requirement for Categorical Exclusion for Highway 

Modernization provision designates resurfacing, restoration, rehabihtation, reconstruct:on, 

adding shoulders, or adding auxJ1Jary lanes as a categorical exc!us1on. The Efimrnating the 

Documentation and Prior Approval Requirement for Categorical Exclusion for Highway 

Safety provision designates highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects. 

including the installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting, as a categoncal exc!usron, 

29The Early Coordination Activities in Environmental Review Process provision 

encourages early cooperation between DOT and other agencies, including states or local~ 

planning agencies, in the environmental review process to avoid delay and duplication, 

and suggests early coordination activities. Early coordinat1on includes establishment of 

MOUs with states or local·planning agenc1es 

Page 17 GA0~18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery