U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–439 PDF 2014

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FEDERAL 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY GRANT 

PROGRAMS 

(113–50) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 28, 2014 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin, Vice Chair 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Christopher A. Hart, Vice Chairman, National Transportation Safety 

Board ..................................................................................................................... 5 

Douglas B. Danko, chairman, American Traffic Safety Services Association .... 5 

Thomas Fuller, sergeant, New York State Police, and president, Commercial 

Vehicle Safety Alliance ........................................................................................ 5 

Kendell Poole, director, Tennessee Governor’s Highway Safety Office, and 

chairman, Governors Highway Safety Association ............................................ 5 

Peter F. Sweatman, Ph.D., director, University of Michigan Transportation 

Research Institute, and chairman, Intelligent Transportation Society of 

America ................................................................................................................. 5 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Thomas E. Petri, of Wisconsin ...................................................................... 39 

Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II, of West Virginia .............................................................. 46 

Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty, of Connecticut ................................................................. 49 

PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE 

RECORD SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Christopher A. Hart: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Delegate and 

Representatives: 

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, of the District of Columbia .................... 64 

Hon. Jerrold Nadler, of New York ........................................................... 65 

Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty, of Connecticut ................................................... 66 

Douglas B. Danko: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78 

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Tom Rice, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina .................................... 83 

Thomas Fuller: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 85 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Duncan Hunter, of California ......................................................... 98 

Hon. Reid J. Ribble, of Wisconsin ............................................................ 99 

Hon. Jerrold Nadler, of New York ........................................................... 102 

Kendell Poole, prepared statement ........................................................................ 105 

Peter F. Sweatman, Ph.D., prepared statement ................................................... 113 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the District of 

Columbia, request to submit to the record the following organizations’ safety priorities and recommendations to Congress: 

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), Small Business Trucking’s Top Priorities for Reauthorization’s Motor Carrier 

Title ................................................................................................................ 118 

Page

VI 

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the District of 

Columbia, request to submit to the record the following organizations’ safety priorities and recommendations to Congress—Continued 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates): 

Advocates letter from Jacqueline Gillan, president, and Joan 

Claybrook, consumer cochair, to Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, and Hon. Nick 

J. Rahall, II, a Representative in Congress from the State of West 

Virginia, January 27, 2014 ................................................................... 120 

Comments submitted in response to the Federal Highway Administration notice requesting comments on the materials related to 

the Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, 78 Federal Register 76889, December 19, 2013 .............................................. 123 

‘‘2014 Roadmap of State Highway Safety Laws’’ .................................... 152 

Jan Withers, president, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), written 

testimony ....................................................................................................... 208 

Stephen Owings, president and cofounder, Road Safe America, written 

testimony ....................................................................................................... 211 

Truck Safety Coalition, 2014 Truck Safety Issues Summary ....................... 215 

Hon. Christopher A. Hart, Vice Chairman, National Transportation Safety 

Board, responses to requests for information from the following Delegate 

and Representative: 

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, of the District of Columbia, regarding 

distracted driving and graduated driver licensing (GDL) in MAP–21 ..... 16 

Hon. Janice Hahn, of California, regarding aging infrastructure recommendations ............................................................................................... 30 

Hon. Thomas E. Petri, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, request to submit the following into the record: 

Peter J. Pantuso, president and chief executive officer, American Bus 

Association, written testimony ..................................................................... 34 

Wayne Allard, vice president, Government Relations, American Motorcyclist Association, letter to Hon. Thomas E. Petri, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes 

Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the District of Columbia, January 

27, 2014 .......................................................................................................... 36 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

The American Trucking Associations, Inc., written statement ............................ 218 

Letter to Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania, and Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of West Virginia, from the following members of the Truck 

Safety Coalition and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Motor 

Carrier Safety Advisory Committee: Jane Mathis, board member, Parents 

Against Tired Truckers; Jennifer Tierney, board member, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways; and John Lannen, executive director, Truck Safety 

Coalition; February 10, 2014 ............................................................................... 224 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 86439.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 86439.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 86439.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 86439.004
(1) 

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 

FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY GRANT PROGRAMS 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in Room 

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

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will come to order. Today’s hearing 

will focus on how Congress can improve the effectiveness of the 

surface transportation safety grant programs. 

The current Federal surface transportation authorization, MAP– 

21, expires on September 30th of this year. As Congress begins 

work on drafting the successor to MAP–21, we must understand 

what the most effective and innovative safety projects and activities are, in order to improve the safety of the traveling public. 

In 2012, 33,561 fatalities occurred on our Nation’s highways, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Highway fatalities in 2012 remain at historic lows, and match levels not seen since 1950. While these safety trends are encouraging, 

much more can be done to further reduce highway fatalities and 

crashes. 

Federal surface transportation safety grant program provides 

States with resources to target their specific safety issues. Each 

State faces unique safety challenges that demand a data-driven, 

performance-based safety approach. It is important to give States 

the flexibility they need to address their unique highway safety 

challenges. But at the same time, States must be held accountable 

for how they are spending their limited Federal resources. And that 

is why MAP–21 requires States to include safety performance targets into their annual highway safety plans. 

One of the largest Federal safety programs is the Highway Safe- ty Improvement Program, which apportions over $2 billion among 

the States to address highway safety infrastructure challenges. 

Each State is required to have a strategic highway safety plan that 

identifies safety problems through data analysis and determine the 

appropriate safety countermeasures. Examples of how this funding 

can be used include improving a dangerous section of highway by 

installing guardrails and rumble strips, or improving highway design to make an intersection safer for motorists and pedestrians. 

2 

States also receive Federal-aid funding to address highway driver 

behavior issues through the State and community highways safety 

grants, otherwise known as section 402 grants. Each State is required to have an annual highway safety plan that identifies their 

unique driver behavior issues, and determine the appropriate safety countermeasures. Example of how this funding can be used include drunk driving and seatbelt enforcement, or community outreach and education activities. 

Commercial motor vehicle enforcement is another important Federal safety priority. States receive funding from the motor carrier 

safety assistance program, which provides resources for States to 

enforce Federal commercial motor vehicle regulations. Funding is 

targeted on investments that promote safe commercial vehicle 

transportation of property, passengers, and hazardous materials. 

Through motor carrier and driver data systems, States are able to 

target the most unsafe carriers and drivers for enforcement. States 

must set program goals and meet performance benchmarks in 

order to be eligible for program funding. 

Technology is one area that can help States improve the effectiveness of their Federal surface transportation safety grants. 

States can further adopt and deploy innovative technologies that 

reduce highway fatalities and crashes, and help enforcement officials target the most unsafe drivers. 

As vehicles become more autonomous and connected, intelligent 

transportation infrastructure assistance will give States more ways 

to create a safer traveling experience for Americans. Such systems 

could warn drivers of dangerous road conditions ahead, or assist 

the driver in making safer driving decisions. 

So, I trust today’s hearing will provide our subcommittee members with insight into the Federal surface transportation safety 

grant programs, and how we can better leverage our limited Federal resources to reduce fatalities and injuries on our Nation’s 

roads. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning, and 

now would recognize our senior Democrat, Eleanor Holmes Norton, 

for any statement she would like to make. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Chairman Petri, for holding 

this very important hearing, and making it a hearing on safety, as 

the second hearing in our effort to move toward a reauthorization 

of the surface transportation bill. I think this shows just the right 

focus, as we seek to reauthorize MAP–21. 

Last year, more than 3,000 people were killed, and over—and 

more than 2.3 million people were injured in accidents on our 

roads. Automobile crashes remain one of the leading causes of 

death for Americans between the ages of 5 and 34. Every one of 

these lives lost is a tragic reminder that we can and must do more 

to enhance safety on our roads. 

For the past decade, the Federal Government has made significant investments in highway safety, and has directed Federal 

funds into those activities that, when implemented by the States, 

result in maximum accident prevention and reduction. Since 2005, 

we have witnessed an impressive 23-percent drop in highway fatalities. 

3 

Unfortunately, in 2012, fatalities were higher than 2011, reversing this trend of safety improvement. I am curious to discover what 

accounts for that, if it is just a blip or some other reason. The next 

reauthorization provides an opportunity to boost our investment in 

safety, to target those activities that save lives and prevent injuries, and to promote safety in innovative ways, such as through the 

assistance of exciting new technologies. 

Truck safety is another area where more can and must be done 

to improve safety, both for travelers who share highways with 

trucks, and for the men and women who drive trucks. These individuals work in unimaginably difficult operating environments 

with highway congestion, heavy demands from shippers and receivers, and with incredibly tight economic margins in which to try to 

earn a living. I recently became aware of many—that many of the 

drivers new to the industry do not receive sufficient training before 

they are expected to drive. I am very interested in the ways the 

Federal Government might improve safety through the setting of 

standards, or addressing basic working conditions in the industry, 

which I believe will result in significant safety gains. And we can 

achieve this without expending many more Federal dollars. 

Highway safety is not the only responsibility of this subcommittee. Americans took more than 10 billion—that is with a 

B—trips on transit last year alone. While public transportation is 

a relatively safe mode of travel, when accidents occur the results 

are often tragic. Delays or suspensions of service as a result of an 

accident affect all riders in the system. 

Right now, in the District of Columbia—right here, in the District of Columbia, excuse me—the 2009 Metro crash at the Fort 

Totten rail station killed 9 people, and 52 others were transported 

to local hospitals. More recently, accidents on transit systems in 

Chicago and San Francisco, and the Metro-North Railroad in Connecticut and New York are stark reminders that we must remain 

vigilant about safety in all our transit rail systems—including our 

rail systems. 

MAP–21 provided the Federal Government with a long overdue 

authority and responsibility to oversee the safety of transit systems 

that receive Federal grants. This is perhaps the most important 

safety regulation passed by the Federal Government in decades, 

and it occurred only after the Metro crash in 2009, when we 

learned that, of the modes of transportation, only Metrorail was 

without any Federal regulations whatsoever. 

And we will hear testimony this morning from the National 

Transportation Safety Board first recommended—that first recommended that the Federal Government be given authority to regulate the safety of transit systems way back in 1981. I look forward 

to hearing from Vice Chairman Hart on recent progress that has 

been made on transit safety at WMATA and other systems across 

the United States. 

Let me close by saying that safety is not only about lives lost, 

as important as that is. And that should always be at the front of 

our minds. Improving safety also affects mobility. According to the 

AAA, in urban areas the total cost of traffic crashes, nearly $300 

billion—that is another B—per year, is over three times the cost 

4 

of congestion. The investments we make to save lives also ensure 

that we truly keep America moving forward. 

I look forward to hearing testimony from today’s witnesses. 

I would like to note that, unfortunately, there are many key 

stakeholders who were not invited to testify today. I asked for their 

input and would like to ask unanimous consent that their safety 

priorities and recommendations to Congress be a part of the record. 

The OOIDA, Teamsters Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, 

MADD—Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and Road Safe America 

would like statements of their safety priorities submitted for the 

record, Mr. Chairman. 

[No response.] 

Mr. PETRI. Without objection, so ordered. 

[Please refer to pages 118–217 for the information submitted for 

the record by Hon. Norton.] 

Mr. PETRI. And the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

Rahall from West Virginia, is recognized. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding this important hearing. Ensuring the safety of users of the 

transportation network is a core function of the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure. Further preventing the tragic 

loss of life and injuries that occur every day on our roads will be 

a top priority of the committee in the next surface transportation 

authorization bill. 

One area that has been a priority for me is addressing the 

unique challenges with railway-highway grade crossings. Last year 

there were nearly 2,000 incidents at grade crossings, resulting in 

233 deaths and 921 injuries. While the number of crashes at grade 

crossings is down 82 percent since 1980, nearly all crashes at grade 

crossings are preventable. 

The primary means of Federal investment in grade crossing safety is the Section 130 Railway-Highway Crossings Program. This 

program provides Federal funds to States to make grade crossing 

safety enhancements. According to the Federal Railroad Administration, the section 130 program—and I quote—‘‘has helped prevent over 10,500 fatalities and 51,000 nonfatal injuries.’’ MAP–21 

preserved the budgetary set-aside for this important safety program, which provides States $221 million annually to assist in 

making grade crossing safety improvements. Without this dedicated funding, grade crossing needs would fare poorly in competition with other highway investment needs. 

So, I am pleased to report that, in recent years, States have been 

obligating significantly more funds towards safety improvements at 

grade crossings. Since the dedicated set-aside was created under 

the Highway Safety Improvement Program, States have obligated 

nearly 75 percent of their available funding. This is up from only 

26 percent in fiscal year 2006. Continuing to provide dedicated 

funding towards this important safety program will mean more injuries averted and more lives saved at the Nation’s more than 

212,000 grade crossings. 

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Ranking Member 

Eleanor Norton, for holding this important hearing, and I look forward to working with you to reauthorize the surface transportation 

5 

programs and to improve—continue to improve the safety of our 

Nation’s highways. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And statements by other Members will be 

made a part of this record. 

Welcome to the witnesses today. The panel consists of the Honorable Christopher A. Hart, Vice Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board; Douglas B. Danko, chairman, American Traffic 

Safety Services Association; Sergeant Thomas Fuller, New York 

State Police, on behalf of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; 

Mr. Kendell Poole, director, Tennessee Governor’s Highway Safety 

Office on behalf of the Governors Highway Safety Association; and 

Dr. Peter Sweatman, who is the director, University of Michigan 

Transportation Research Institute, on behalf of the Intelligent 

Transportation Society of America. 

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for the effort that went into 

the prepared statement by you and your organizations. And we 

would invite you to make your best effort to summarize those statements in about 5 minutes, beginning with Mr. Hart. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. CHRISTOPHER A. HART, VICE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD; DOUGLAS B. DANKO, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN TRAFFIC SAFETY 

SERVICES ASSOCIATION; THOMAS FULLER, SERGEANT, NEW 

YORK STATE POLICE, AND PRESIDENT, COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE; KENDELL POOLE, DIRECTOR, TENNESSEE GOVERNOR’S HIGHWAY SAFETY OFFICE, AND 

CHAIRMAN, GOVERNORS HIGHWAY SAFETY ASSOCIATION; 

AND PETER F. SWEATMAN, PH.D., DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY 

OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 

AND CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SOCIETY 

OF AMERICA 

Mr. HART. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Petri and Ranking Member Norton, and members of the subcommittee. I am 

Christopher Hart, Vice Chairman of the National Transportation 

Safety Board. Thank you for inviting the NTSB to testify today to 

help inform this process with lessons we have learned from investigating crashes. 

During the past year, the NTSB’s highway and rail divisions 

have been busy investigating several accidents across the country. 

On our highways we investigated several truck and motorcoach accidents, resulting in 25 deaths and more than 85 injuries. Our 

teams continue to investigate the Skagit River Bridge collapse on 

Interstate 5 in Washington State, and the highway rail grade 

crossing accident in Baltimore County, Maryland, that resulted in 

a train derailment followed by a major explosion. 

In rail, Metro-North had four major accidents since May of 2013. 

These events resulted in 5 fatalities and 135 injuries. Also, the Chicago Transit Authority and Bay Area Rapid Transit had accidents 

this past fall, and we continue to investigate those accidents. 

We also continue to monitor Washington Metro’s implementation 

of its recommendations from the 2009 Fort Totten accident that 

was mentioned previously. Just last week, WMATA completed another recommendation so that 8 of those recommendations out of 

6 

18 remain open. WMATA indicates that it will implement those remaining eight recommendations. 

The vast majority of transportation fatalities, however, occur on 

our Nation’s highways, with more than 30,000 fatalities every year. 

Much more can be done to improve safety in areas of impaired 

driving, distracted driving, fatigued driving, and motor carrier 

oversight. Fortunately, the technologies to help drivers avoid crashes are improving every day. For example, NHTSA estimates that 

connected vehicle technology can reduce the number of nonimpaired multivehicle collisions by as much as 80 percent. 

To limit the effects of alcohol impairment and fatigue, systems 

are being developed to prevent alcohol-impaired drivers from starting their vehicles, and to detect if a driver is becoming too drowsy 

to drive. Although some of these technologies are still in development, technology such as forward collision warning and avoidance 

systems are available now, but need to be more widely deployed in 

the motor vehicle fleet, as standard equipment, rather than as an 

option only for those who can afford it. 

Unfortunately, the crash scenes that we see usually are not new 

to us. The same contributing factors present themselves over and 

over again. Our job is to help improve safety, and we make recommendations from each accident to help accomplish this goal. 

Many times our recommendations are challenging and take time, 

effort, and will to implement. But, as we have seen, safety can be 

significantly improved with advancements such as airbags and 

seatbelts. Years ago, these were hard-fought accomplishments. But 

today, they are standard equipment on every new car we buy. 

The traveling public demands safety, and policymakers have 

made important strides in promoting it. You can continue to do so 

through your work on the next surface reauthorization bill. I encourage you to keep the bar high regarding safety, to ensure that 

together we can further reduce the numbers of transportation fatalities and injuries. 

The NTSB does not need to investigate another accident to relearn the same lessons. We have the facts and we have the knowledge. What is needed now is the will. 

This concludes my testimony, and I am prepared to answer your 

questions. Thanks again for having the NTSB testify today. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Danko. 

Mr. DANKO. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Norton, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today on behalf of the American Traffic Safety Services Association, 

or ATSSA. My name is Douglas Danko, and I am ATSSA’s chairman and recently retired president of Protection Services, Inc. 

ATSSA is an international trade association which represents 1,600 

members who manufacture, distribute, or install roadway safety infrastructure devices. 

We all recognize the current condition of the Federal Highway 

Trust Fund. In order to make progress on reducing roadway fatalities, the fiscal situation of the Highway Trust Fund must be addressed and made sustainable. ATSSA is committed to working 

with Congress to find additional revenue options that will invest in 

our infrastructure, save lives, and create jobs. And all funding options should be on the table. 

7 

MAP–21 made great strides in making roads safer. However, 

more must be accomplished. The Highway Safety Improvement 

Program, or HSIP, was increased to $2.4 billion annually, which 

represents a commitment by Congress to safety. Tragically, in 

2012, more than 33,000 people still died on America’s roads. Even 

though the loss of a loved one cannot be truly captured in dollar 

figures, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does 

value a statistical life at $9.1 million. The good news is that since 

the HSIP was created, there has been a dramatic decrease in roadway deaths, and we must continue this focus on safety. 

Projects that are eligible under HSIP generally have been very 

high return on investment. States are finding that a small infrastructure investment can yield large reduction in crashes. According to a June 2010 study conducted by SAIC, the HSIP yields a 

benefit cost ratio of 42-to-1. The study notes that for every $1 million increase in safety obligations, roadway fatalities were annually 

reduced by seven. ATSSA recommends that the HSIP be continued 

as a core program, and that the investment in that program be increased to $3 billion annually, or 10 percent of the overall Federalaid highway program, whichever is greater. 

In the next reauthorization, Congress should eliminate the 

States’ ability to transfer funds from the HSIP to other core highway programs. It is true that States need degrees of flexibility 

when focusing on the individual project needs. However, with more 

than 33,000 fatalities occurring each and every year, taking funds 

away from the core safety infrastructure program seems counterproductive. 

Also, when MAP–21 was crafted, the legislative language—but is 

not limited to—was added before the list of eligible HSIP activities. 

Unfortunately, this language has been interpreted to mean that 

any safety project, infrastructure or not, may be eligible under the 

HSIP, thus diluting the core purpose of the program. 

In the next reauthorization, ATSSA recommends focusing the 

language to reflect more on additional safety infrastructure devices, 

instead of the open-ended interpretation currently used by the Federal Highway Administration. Currently, local agencies often do 

not have the resources necessary to address their safety concerns. 

According to the FHWA, the fatality rate on rural roads is two-anda-half times greater than on urban roads. The next reauthorization 

should include language to help streamline the process to allow 

local governments to utilize the HSIP funds and the technical expertise that State DOTs have in order to make local and rural 

roads as safe as possible. 

In addition, older drivers are an important aspect of roadway 

safety. Because there is a clear need for older driver safety infrastructure solutions into the future, the next reauthorization should 

include language that assists States and local transportation departments in planning for and implementing cost-effective safety 

infrastructure solutions. 

Finally, work zone safety should continue to be an area of focus. 

And the next reauthorization should continue to fund the Work 

Zone Safety Grant and expand its eligible activities. We must protect our workers who are exposed to dangerous roadway conditions, 

8 

such as heavy traffic and speeding, while ensuring that road users, 

including pedestrians, have safe passage through those work zones. 

On behalf of ATSSA, I thank you for this opportunity to testify 

about America’s safety infrastructure needs, and how we all can 

move our Nation towards zero deaths on our roads. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Sergeant Fuller. 

Mr. FULLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for holding this important 

hearing, and for inviting the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance to 

testify. My name is Tom Fuller. I am a sergeant with the New 

York State Police, and the current president of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. 

The Alliance represents State, provincial, and Federal commercial vehicle safety officials responsible for enforcing the safety regulations in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. We work to improve commercial vehicle safety and security by bringing safety enforcement agencies together, along with industry representatives, 

to solve problems and, more importantly, to save lives. I oversee 

the commercial vehicle enforcement unit for the New York State 

Police, and I am responsible for administrating the State’s grant 

funds under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. 

Effective Federal grant programs like MCSAP are critical to ensuring safety on our Nation’s highways. The Federal Government 

provides funds through the MCSAP to the States for the enforcement of this country’s motor carrier safety regulations. The States 

use these funds for training, enforcement activities, purchase 

equipment specific to this idea, update software, and, more important, to conduct educational campaigns about commercial motor vehicle safety. 

The MCSAP is effective in reducing crashes and saving lives. 

However, there are a number of improvements that could be made 

to streamline the program, improve efficiency, and make better use 

of limited resources. MCSAP is plagued by inconsistencies and red 

tape. To address these challenges, CVSA has developed a series of 

recommendations, which are more fully outlined in our written testimony. 

There are several administrative changes that, if made, would 

dramatically improve MCSAP efficiency. First, provide States with 

additional flexibility, so we can fully leverage resources and improve program efficiency. Rather than provide a prescriptive requirement, FMCSA should focus on outlining program parameters 

and goals, and then allow the States to develop solutions that are 

unique to our States that fit the program. 

We recommend streamlining the commercial vehicle safety plan 

process to eliminate unnecessary administrative burdens on States, 

while improving the effectiveness of these plans. There are programs by the Federal Highway Administration and the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration from which FMCSA can 

borrow. 

In addition, moving to a longer term CVSP process—let’s say 3 

to 5 years—will reduce administrative burdens on the States and 

FMCSA, freeing up resources on both the States and the Federal 

Government. States also need more consistency, funding needs to 

be predictable and steady, and the grant application review process 

9 

should be standard from State to State and year to year. FMCSA 

should have clear deadlines for when they have to meet their obligations to States, just like the States must do for the Federal Government. 

In addition to the process changes, there are policy changes that 

are necessary to maximize effectiveness and efficiency within 

MCSAP. We need to eliminate, as much as possible, the inconsistencies within the program, which only lead to confusion and draw 

much-needed resources away from the program activities. 

Enforcement and industry alike must be able to understand the 

regulations. Unfortunately, however, over time, additional regulatory authority, coupled with changes to the industry and technology advancements, results in inconsistent, outdated, and redundant regulatory language. To address this, CVSA supports requiring FMCSA, in collaboration with stakeholders, conduct a full review of the regulations every 5 years, geared towards reducing, enhancing, and streamlining the regulations, eliminating outdated 

and duplicative regulations, and clarifying those that need adjustment. 

This requirement would also help reduce some of the disconnects 

that exist between the regulations and the regulatory guidance interpretations and policy memos issued by FMCSA. Furthermore, 

requiring that FMCSA publish all petitions for changes to regulations in the Federal Register, as they do for exemptions, would help 

provide clarity for both industry and enforcement, and promote 

greater collaboration. 

Next, I would like to address the legislative exemptions. First 

and foremost, safety regulations exist to protect those on our Nation’s roadways, and exemptions undermine safety. Furthermore, 

every new exemption is an opportunity for confusion and inconsistency in enforcement, diverting scarce resources from our other activities and undermining program effectiveness. CVSA opposes any 

and all legislative exemptions or, at the very least, when being considered exemptions should be required to include a safety clause 

which would provide for monitoring and a mechanism to eliminate 

the exemption, should it negatively impact safety. 

Further, CVSA supports removing crashes involving exempted 

industries from the criteria used to determine grant awards to 

States. Simply put, we should not be punished for segments of the 

industry that we do not have authority over. 

Finally, while the focus of this hearing is on improving efficiencies, I believe it is necessary to say a word about the need for 

adequate and reliable funding. New and expanded responsibilities 

mean improvements in safety, but only in as much as the States 

are able to effectively implement those policies. It is critical that 

Congress and FMCSA ensure that all new programs are created 

with funding that is provided to the States, avoiding any unfunded 

mandates. Otherwise, effectiveness suffers. 

We recognize that the issue of funding for the Federal transportation program is a complicated one with no easy solutions. CVSA 

strongly supports the ongoing efforts to identify sustainable, longterm revenue sources to address the Highway Trust Fund solvency 

in order to ensure stability for MCSAP. 

10 

In closing, I would like to reiterate that, despite the challenges, 

MCSAP works well. We have seen a steady reduction in commercial motor vehicle crashes and fatalities since inception. CVSA has 

a good working relationship with FMCSA and we work together as 

much as possible to address this issue. The unfortunate fact is that 

there are still significant challenges that are hampering program 

efficiency and effectiveness. There are a number of options available for improving efficiency and reducing redundancy in the system that will allow for better leveraging of Federal funds. 

We look forward to working with this committee and FMCSA develop and implement creative solutions to continue to improve our 

Nation’s motor vehicle safety program. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Poole. 

Mr. POOLE. I am Kendell Poole, chairman of the Governors Highway Safety Association. I would like to thank the subcommittee for 

the opportunity to testify here today. GHSA represents State highway safety offices in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 

United States territories. GHSA members administer the behavioral highway safety grant programs under MAP–21. 

Although we have made some significant progress, there were 

still more than 33,000 traffic-related fatalities and more than 2 

million injuries in 2012. In addition to the mental and emotional 

toll on families, crashes also cost the Nation an estimated $230 billion annually to address this problem. The Federal Government 

must make the reduction of highway fatalities and injuries a national priority, and play a strong role in developing highway safety 

policies and programs. 

As Congress considers reauthorization for highway safety programs, GHSA recommends enacting a long-term reauthorization to 

help States develop comprehensive strategic plans and undertake 

needed multiyear projects such as data and traffic record systems 

improvements. This reauthorization should also contain provisions 

to reduce the administrative burden placed on States required to 

prepare the grant application and manage the program and alter 

the current maintenance of effort requirements to provide relief to 

economically distressed States. States should not be required to use 

outdated data in developing their highway safety plans. They 

should have the option of using the most recent State or Federal 

data, rather than being required to use FARS data, which is often 

a year or more behind other sources. 

Congress should restructure the Section 405 National Priority 

Safety Program to make significant changes to tiers addressing impaired driving, motorcyclist safety, distracted driving, and teen 

driving. These include allowing States that grant rare exemptions 

to ignition interlock requirements to qualify for impaired driving 

funds, simplifying the distracted driving program to reward States 

that enforce primary texting bans for all drivers and complete cell 

phone bans for novice drivers. The teen driving incentive needs to 

be restructured to reward States with strong teen driving laws. 

States are in need of additional section 402 money to address 

issues such as excessive speeding, drugged driving, distracted driving, and other emerging safety challenges. To increase the support 

of the section 402 program, Congress should allow NHTSA to 

11 

transfer a portion of the unobligated section 405 money into section 

402. 

MAP–21 authorizes a cooperative research and evaluation pro- gram of $2.5 million annually. Utilizing 402 funds, the program is 

administered by NHTSA, but managed jointly by NHTSA and 

GHSA. Despite previous efforts, only a small portion of behavioral 

highway safety countermeasures have been adequately researched. 

Without sufficient research to indicate what works and what 

doesn’t, States may be forced to implement programs without an 

appropriate research basis. To address this, GHSA recommends 

that funding for behavioral research be supported, and the cooperative NHTSA–GHSA program continue. 

Finally, GHSA does not support sanctions, as we believe they are 

untargeted and counterproductive. States are already subject to 

seven safety-related sanctions, and evidence on their effectiveness 

is mixed. GHSA recommends an incentive-based approach to encourage changes in State policies and programs. 

And finally, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I will be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Dr. Sweatman. 

Dr. SWEATMAN. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Norton, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

about Federal transportation safety grant programs, and how we 

can improve their effectiveness. I am honored to share my views, 

both as a recipient of Federal safety grants through the University 

of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, and on behalf of the 

Intelligent Transportation Society of America, which brings together the transportation and technology communities. 

We are looking forward to working with members of this subcommittee to pass a reauthorization bill that builds on the reforms 

in MAP–21, and that deploys innovative technologies for improving 

safety and for providing greater mobility to America’s transportation users. 

Through Federal safety grant funding, vehicles, infrastructure, 

and driver behavior come together under powerful enabling technologies. The whole is much greater than the sum of the parts, 

serving the national interest. 

Several megatrends currently affect the way the safety systems 

are developed. The auto industry is increasing the pace of deployment of sensors. The burgeoning consumer electronics industry reduces costs for key enabling technologies. And advances in wireless 

communication revolutionize sensing between vehicles and infrastructure. These trends mean that a wider range of industry sectors need to be collaborating, and research needs to be carried out 

on a very large scale, under real-world operating conditions. 

The true goal is no less than crash prevention. Despite a long 

and meritorious history of vehicle and driver safety measures, we 

still bear the national burden of 33,000 fatalities every year. 

Working collaboratively with stakeholders, the U.S. Department 

of Transportation is developing vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications, known as Connected Vehicle Technology, to prevent vehicles from crashing. This innovative technology relies on the interference-free use of dedicated spectrum in 

the 5.9 gigahertz band, which was set aside by the Federal ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:17 Jul 03, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\1-28-1~1\86439.TXT JEAN
12 

munications Commission. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that a fully deployed Connected Vehicle 

Network could address 80 percent of all nonimpaired crash scenarios, an astounding figure representing thousands of lives saved. 

And it is not just cars talking to cars, but also trucks talking to 

cars and motorcycles, and even buses talking to pedestrians. At 

UMTRI, we are conducting the largest naturalistic test of Connected Vehicle Technology in the world in Ann Arbor, Michigan, 

the federally funded safety pilot model deployment. The data from 

the safety pilot are being used by NHTSA to determine the most 

effective path toward full-scale deployment of this life-saving technology. This is a truly revolutionary partnership, and a great example of what can happen when the Government works with private-sector innovators, researchers, and State and local agencies 

who manage the infrastructure to accomplish big things. 

This could not happen without Federal leadership shaping how 

such a system could operate, and establishing certain parts of its 

architecture. The safety pilot is an example of how Federal safety 

grants can be used to leverage State and local dollars and privatesector investment. The model deployment has had sufficient impact 

on Michigan institutions that plans were developed and funding 

identified to create a full regional deployment of connected vehicles 

in southeast Michigan. 

Recognizing connected, automated vehicles as a critical driver of 

economic growth, the State partnered with the University of Michigan to develop a new center devoted to the deployment of connected and automated systems, including a unique off-roadway test 

facility for automated vehicles. Manufacturers from all over the 

world are expected to use this facility to evaluate their technologies 

for on-road use. 

These and other innovations will be showcased from September 

7 to 11 of this year in Detroit, during the 21st World Congress on 

Intelligent Transportation Systems. ITS America is proud to be 

staging this must-attend event for experiencing an unprecedented 

wave of innovation and mobility. Please come. 

Finally, today as ITS technologies reach far beyond safety, there 

are equally significant benefits for mobility, accessibility, energy efficiency, and the environment. Stronger, more timely coordination 

between Federal agencies is needed to recognize the transformational nature of the technology, and to protect essential 

enablers such as high-performance wireless spectrum. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony. I have 

a couple questions, and I am sure other members of the panel do, 

as well. 

I think the first area that I wondered if, Mr. Poole, you could expand on a little bit, you indicated that—kind of speaking on behalf 

of the States, that you felt that more sanctions in terms of trying 

to force States to promote safety would not be as effective as focusing more on incentives. 

And this is—several of us have been active in aviation over the 

years, and this has been a debate, as to how to get highway safety 

and their—I mean aviation safety. And most of the experts in the 

13 

field, as much communication—as open, analyzing problems, are 

much better than whenever there is a mistake punishing people, 

because no one really wants an accident, whether it is in the air 

or on land. But if you get punished when it occurs or you could be 

blamed for it, there is an effort to kind of cover up or there are incentives that are counterproductive, in terms of the bigger picture. 

And I don’t know if that is what your thinking is on that, or if 

you could expand on why we shouldn’t, you know, lean on the 

States harder, rather than encouraging them to use their own 

imagination and innovative instincts. 

Mr. POOLE. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be 

glad to try to answer that. 

You know, we represent so many different States across the 

country that we have seen incentives and sanctions before in behavioral highway safety. And, historically, incentives have worked 

much better for the States. We have been able to save more lives, 

which is what we are about, with incentives. It gives the States 

more—a more broad range of creativity in how they implement 

those programs with incentives. So we support incentives over 

sanctions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. The—question for Dr. Sweatman. Do you 

have any particular suggestions that Congress might consider to 

make the intelligent transportation deployment program more effective in our next reauthorization bill? Or is legislative tweaking 

not the issue here? 

Dr. SWEATMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my message 

would be all about deployment, real deployment. So we have had 

many demonstrations, we have had a lot of research. We need deployment. And I think we will be considering that in terms of either city deployments or regional deployments of ITS. 

One of the exciting things about ITS is the ability to, for performance management of the transportation system, we haven’t really 

been able to roll that out nationally in the past. But as we get ITS 

deployment, real deployment, we have the ability to collect the data 

we need to evaluate the benefits of various transportation projects. 

And we think there is a lot of cross-cutting benefit for many different types of ITS technologies being deployed in the same environment, whether that is a city or whether that is a regional deployment. And that would include innovative pricing schemes along 

with integrated corridor management schemes and the sort of connected vehicle technologies that I already talked about. 

So, as we bring all of those technologies together, and we use the 

data that is being generated to manage the system better and understand the benefits, I think that is when we start to see real improvements. And we need more deployment. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Ms. Norton? 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate all of the testimony. I found it, your written testimony and 

the testimony I was able to hear, very informative. 

Could I first go to truck safety standards? And, Sgt. Fuller, you 

indicated that States were being penalized for fatalities that occur, 

and parts of the industry, really, are exempt from regulation. Are 

you saying that industries exempt from regulation—the primary 

14 

one that comes to mind is agriculture—are involved in a significant 

number of crashes? How significant is that number? 

Mr. FULLER. As you mention, the agriculture industry is exempt 

from a lot of the regulations. Is it a large amount of crashes? No. 

But as we all know, the Federal Government works off of consistent data. And no matter what happens, those crashes goes into 

the FARS data, it goes into the large truck causation study data. 

And that negatively affects the States, because our grant money is 

based upon a lot of that data that the Federal Government—— 

Ms. NORTON. So are you saying that since they are exempt, their 

accident rate should not be in the database? 

Mr. FULLER. Yes, I am. 

Ms. NORTON. Could I ask Mr. Hart whether NTSB supports behind-the-wheel driving for entry-level drivers—training, I am sorry, 

behind-the-wheel training for entry-level truck drivers. Or do you 

feel that the current regulations are sufficient? 

Mr. HART. Thank you for the question. We have made recommendations regarding training over the years. For a commercial 

driver’s license, all you needed to do is pass the test. There is no 

regulated training requirement. 

For example, in an accident in which a schoolbus rear-ended another schoolbus, we recommended training regarding safe following 

distances. 

Ms. NORTON. So, even then, even with those schoolbuses—— 

Mr. HART. Correct. 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Behind-the-wheel training does not 

occur. 

Mr. HART. Correct. In some school districts, adequate behind-thewheel training does not occur. 

Ms. NORTON. Even though they are trusted with the lives of children. 

Mr. HART. Correct. We have made numerous recommendations 

regarding training over the years. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. I don’t see how we can continue to put the 

data from agriculture into the State base and deny them funds, or 

impose other sanctions, while exempting—especially considering 

how sweeping is the exemption, for example, for agriculture. 

Let me go on to the testimony of Mr. Poole, who wants no additional safety-related sanctions. And your question, Mr. Poole, the 

effectiveness of the sanctions—now, of course, one can understand 

that, with respect to weak, or so-called soft sanctions. But not— 

but, of course, that doesn’t involve the kind of sanctions such as 

withholding program funding that tends to get State attention. 

What evidence is there that in the case of strong or hard standards, where, for example, highway construction funds could be 

withheld, that when those funds are taken away, that they would 

not help a State to remain in compliance, or the very threat of 

those funds taken away? 

Mr. POOLE. Thank you. There are many evidences across the 

country where we feel like, as members of GHSA, that incentives 

simply work better than the sanctions. And the numbers are there 

to bear that out. 

When we get the money from NHTSA to implement these programs, the States use a lot of creativity in being able to implement 

15 

those programs within the bounds of the law. When there are sanctions available and money is withheld, it simply doesn’t work, and 

it doesn’t create a good environment—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, let me ask you this, Mr. Poole. Are you familiar with the States who have enacted 21-age limits, drinking-age 

limits with .08 percent alcohol content? Are you familiar with the 

number of States who have done that? 

Mr. POOLE. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. How many? 

Mr. POOLE. I believe .08, the number of States—I will get back 

to you on the exact number. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Poole, it is every State. 

Mr. POOLE. Right. 

Ms. NORTON. It is every State. 

Mr. POOLE. Right. 

Ms. NORTON. Nobody wants to lose his funding. You have the incentive, of course, of losing lives. And so every State has done it. 

We are not even suggesting that funds would be taken away. The 

Government is reluctant to take away funds. 

Mr. POOLE. Right. 

Ms. NORTON. And usually engages in a great deal of back-andforth before any funds are ever taken away. 

But there is an instance where every State, given that possible 

sanction, did what the Congress wanted it to do. And I compare 

that with the weak sanctions here for distracted driving, including 

teen driving. Very, very worrisome. 

Are you aware of how many States had funds withheld as a result of this strong sanction? 

Mr. POOLE. Are you talking about teen driving and distracted 

driving? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. 

Mr. POOLE. We are very, very disappointed in the ability to get 

money out to the States in teen driving and distracted driving, because many States—— 

Ms. NORTON. No, I am talking about—I am simply—I am doing 

a kind of syllogism here. Every State enacted .08 for 21 and under. 

Mr. POOLE. Correct. 

Ms. NORTON. As a 21-year drinking age. My question—and it is 

a rhetorical one—is that no State, in order to get there, had its 

funds withheld. I am trying to make the case that if the Federal 

Government shows it means it, the sanction works. It doesn’t have 

to withhold funds. If we engage in soft funding, we think we mean 

that, too. And they simply do not comply. 

And so, what you want us to do is, I take it, reduce the standards on this—under this soft—because they haven’t complied. Although, the evidence we have is they comply when they are staring 

in the face of a harder sanction. Now, we can talk about how hard 

it should be. But the evidence seems to be the reverse of what you 

are suggesting, that soft sanctions don’t exactly encourage compliance, hard sanctions do, and they do so without taking one red cent 

from the State. 

Given what is at stake—here, it is teen driving—why should we 

not tell the States, ‘‘Hey, we mean what we said in MAP–21, and 

your funds are at stake’’? 

16 

Mr. POOLE. Your point is very well taken, and GHSA will re-examine those positions. 

Ms. NORTON. I would appreciate that. I would just ask you to reexamine it in light of—I don’t know if you opposed, for example, 

the blood alcohol sanction. All I can say is it was effective. 

And I do want to ask Mr. Hart. Do you support—does the NTSB 

support the present MAP–21 approach? 

Mr. HART. With respect to the blood alcohol in particular, and 

specifically, we have recommended a reduction from .08 to .05. 

Ms. NORTON. Would you support changing the standards to allow 

more States to qualify, as Mr. Poole, as least initially, believes? Or 

do you believe the standards that we set for distracted driving in 

MAP–21 under these programs are the targets that we should continue to have States meet? 

Mr. HART. I will provide information for the record regarding 

NTSB views on the specific distracted driving standards within 

MAP–21. As a general matter, our recommendations are not prescriptive as to how to accomplish them. 

Ms. NORTON. I wish you would get back to us on whether you 

support what was in MAP–21 on the standards. 

Mr. HART. I will provide that information to the committee. 

Ms. NORTON. For distracted driving. 

Mr. HART. Yes. 

[The information follows:] 

Distracted Driving and Graduated Drivers Licenses (GDL) in 

MAP–21 

The NTSB has seen numerous highway crashes and accidents in all modes 

involving distraction. Because of this continuing epidemic, the NTSB has 

taken a strong stance on distraction behind the wheel. The NTSB supports 

the program established by Congress in Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century (MAP–21) Act, to reduce the dangers of distracted driving associated with the use of personal communication devices. The requirement 

that States have primary laws that address texting and youth cell phone 

prohibitions is in line with NTSB recommendations. The NTSB has also 

called for a complete ban on the use of personal electronic devices that are 

not germane to the driving task, and we hope that States will enact this 

recommendation as well. Further, removing the exemption for States that 

allow commercial vehicle drivers to use their devices for business purposes 

would further improve State laws and support NTSB findings and recommendations from commercial vehicle accidents involving distraction. 

Graduated drivers’ licenses (GDL) refer to multistage licensing systems requiring novice drivers younger than 21 years of age to comply with a set 

of minimum requirements before being eligible to receive an unrestricted 

driver’s license. GDL requirements help ensure our youngest drivers receive 

proper training, and the NTSB has recommended these types of licenses for 

over 10 years. The NTSB has called for a learner’s permit stage and an intermediate stage, and MAP–21 reflects these recommendations. MAP–21 

also provides that driver training should be part of the licensing process, 

and the NTSB has recommended that National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Department of Education determine the 

most effective instructional tools, training methods, curricula, and sequencing in providing this class. One area not addressed is that NHTSA should 

evaluate this grant program to ensure that States are using the grants effectively to improve their GDL program. Performance-based measures can 

provide valuable information for other States considering such programs. 

Monitoring the implementation of these laws and how these grants are 

used can produce valuable data as we work together to reduce the injuries 

and fatalities on our roads. The NTSB believes that a data-driven approach 

that incorporates specific, ambitious, and measurable goals, as well as conVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:17 Jul 03, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\1-28-1~1\86439.TXT JEAN
17 

tinuous monitoring of the effectiveness of countermeasures, can provide the 

best information for policymakers as you review these programs. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to have the panel 

with us. Mr. Chairman, I had a judiciary hearing earlier, and I 

apologize for my delay here. 

Let me plow new ground, gentlemen, regarding safety. Now, DUI 

violations have plagued us for years and years, and continue to 

plague us. Do you anticipate any impediments or difficulty in detecting influence of marijuana? It is more and more—it increased, 

I am told. Will that pose a problem, as far—an additional problem, 

as far as safety on the highways are concerned? 

Mr. POOLE. I will be glad to answer that. Thank you, Mr. Coble. 

Drugged driving is actually a huge part of our platform in GHSA. 

Impaired driving used to just mean alcohol, and that is not the 

case any more. Whether it is simply prescription drugs or whether 

it is illegal narcotics, many of our States across the country have 

utilized Federal funding to train drug recognition experts who are 

able to assist police officers. They receive 2-week training, very extensive training, to make sure that we get those impaired drivers 

off the roads as well. Because, as you well know, 33 percent of our 

total fatalities are alcohol-related, nationwide. And impaired is inclusive of drugged driving. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you for that. Anybody want to add further 

to that? 

[No response.] 

Mr. COBLE. I have never enrolled in the marijuana consumption 

school, so I bring no personal experience to the table, but I can see 

that that may open another door directly relating to highway safety. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Sires? 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, 

and thank you, all of you, for being here today. 

I want to bring it down to a little different—something that is 

all around me. In 2012, bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorcyclists 

made up about 30 percent of all traffic deaths. That, to me, extremely high. As I drive around Washington, I see everybody with 

the bicycles. I see kids—well, I call them kids; they are young people—with babies sometimes sitting in the back of their—slipping 

through. 

I think that this is only going to increase. I mean 30 percent of 

all traffic deaths are related to this. How can we improve those 

numbers without—there is a trend now for everybody to use bicycles or walking, and so forth. We need to focus more money on 

training people to be more careful. Yes, we only, I think, allocated 

one percent of the money for safety. 

Can you give me some idea as to what we can do? Because I— 

this is a trend that, I think, is going nationwide. Most people are 

using bicycles or most people are walking. I would just like to start 

with you, Dr. Sweatman. 

Dr. SWEATMAN. Thank you very much. Certainly. I mentioned in 

my testimony that in our connected vehicle environment, which is 

aimed squarely at safety in Ann Arbor, we already have motorVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:17 Jul 03, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\1-28-1~1\86439.TXT JEAN
18 

cycles involved in that. We have bicycles involved in that. And the 

exciting breakthrough that we see coming is that through the use 

of smartphone technology, pedestrians can be brought into that picture, as well. So vehicles are going to know where pedestrians are, 

because of the signals that are coming from their smartphones. 

So, we believe that that kind of communication and that kind of 

information being exchanged will have a major impact. And certainly in a place like Ann Arbor, a college town where we have a 

lot of pedestrian problems, that is something that the university 

and the city of Ann Arbor is very excited about. So our connected 

vehicle technology is not just about cars, and we really want to emphasize that. So our vision is to include the motorcyclists, the 

bicyclists, and the pedestrians, so that every actor out on the roadway is connected. 

Mr. SIRES. And I also think it is where there are no hands on 

the handle and they are texting as they—I have seen that, also. So 

that scares me, also. 

Mr. Hart, you delivered in 1994 the national bicycle and the 

walking study to Congress. If you—you did that, where you set 

some guidelines for safety. 

Mr. HART. I will review our safety reports on whether we have 

examined pedestrian and cyclist accidents. 

Mr. SIRES. Because I have seen that, you know, it was reducing 

bicycling and walking fatalities by 10 percent, some of the guidelines that you put forth. I was just wondering if you were to put 

out some more guidelines, or you are going to continue to promote 

those guidelines for safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. 

Mr. HART. I would say in the broader sense that we are addressing the multifaceted approaches that try to reduce accidents in general, impaired driving, distracted driving, fatigue, some technologies—as you have heard, we are pursuing all of the above that 

would also have, hopefully, a positive impact regarding bicycle and 

pedestrian fatalities. 

Mr. SIRES. What can we do, as—would you like—oh, OK. What 

can we do, as congresspeople, to enhance safety for pedestrians and 

bicyclists and people who—you know, who have different modes of 

moving around? 

Mr. HART. Let me review the NTSB’s reports to determine if we 

have made recommendations on that topic. 

Mr. SIRES. It is a good report. My staff told me that. 

Mr. HART. I will provide information to the committee on any 

NTSB report on that topic. 

Mr. SIRES. I am sorry. Mr. Danko? 

Mr. DANKO. I would just like to say that our association, the 

American Traffic Safety Services Association, has published guidelines on bicyclists and motorcycle safety, and we would like to get 

that to you in the near future. 

Mr. SIRES. I also see now those two-wheelers that people have, 

you know, Washington, DC, people moving around. I don’t know. 

What do they call those? I see police officers in the—— 

Mr. DANKO. Segways? 

Mr. SIRES. Segways, yes. OK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Ribble? 

19 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Danko, I come from 

northern Wisconsin, where we have a lot of rural roads. And when 

you look at the data, safety on rural roadways, it seems like fatalities occur at a higher rate. Can you talk to us a little bit about 

what some of the main contributors are for that? It would seem to 

me that would be the opposite, that we have high traffic volume 

and high urban areas would be more dangerous. Can you talk a little bit about that? 

Mr. DANKO. Yes, sir. We have seen the statistic that rural roads 

have two-and-a-half times the fatality rate as a urban road. And 

a lot of the factors are—a number of them. One is speed on a rural 

road. There tends to be more speeding on that type of a highway. 

There is less lighting on rural roads. There is less ambient lighting 

on rural roads. There are more—tending to be hilly, curvy, narrower. Now I am not talking about the travel lanes narrow itself, 

but the shoulder tends to be narrower, and sometimes substandard, 

so if you get off the roadway it will—it—there is less forgiveness. 

And the EMS response time is typically longer. 

Mr. RIBBLE. It seems that some of the things you mentioned are 

really out of control. Hills, curves, things like that, you are often 

going through woods or over—or through very hilly terrain or farm 

terrain. But there are some things that could be done on infrastructure. You mentioned lighting, the narrowness of roads, things like 

that. Do you have any comments in regard to that? 

Mr. DANKO. Yes. We would say that maybe more edge lines that 

would alert the driver that they are now getting out of the travel 

land. A center line rumble strip can do the same kind of thing. 

Wider lines so you can see them a little bit more. Chevrons in the 

curves can help you—direct you to where the curve is actually 

going at the time, so that it kind of leads you through the curve. 

You can get into pavement markers that help, you know, delineate 

the same kind of a situation. And then you can go to a high-friction 

surface on curves that will then hold the tires a little bit better as 

they go around. 

Mr. RIBBLE. OK. Thank you very much. Sgt. Fuller—I am over 

here, way to your left—by means of full disclosure, I am a motorcycle rider, and actually, I would even define myself as a motorcycle enthusiast. I have a motorcycle here, in town, and I also have 

one back in Wisconsin. And I enjoy riding. And I understand that 

New York State uses section 402 funds to pay for motorcycle-only 

checkpoints. Is that accurate? 

Mr. FULLER. I believe so, but I am not sure. That does not fall 

under my program. 

Mr. RIBBLE. OK. Just along the lines—since you are a State patrolman, and we talk about motorcycle safety, do you think that 

safety funds could be better spent towards strategies that would 

prevent motorcycle crashes, as opposed to maybe doing checkpoints? 

Mr. FULLER. I am always for less accidents, because less accidents save lives, injuries. How the money is spent, again, does not 

fall underneath my program. There is a separate section of the 

New York State Police traffic section that handles motorcycle safety, and it would fall underneath their jurisdiction, not mine. 

20 

Mr. RIBBLE. Yes, and I would agree. I can tell you, as a motorcycle rider, I have always viewed motorcycle riding as a relatively 

safe activity. Motorcycle crashing is another thing. And so I have 

a tendency to pay really close attention to crash avoidance, and 

being aware of what is around me. And I am not sure that an arbitrary checkpoint does much to enhance that training, or make me 

a safer driver. So I was just curious on your opinion, as a police 

officer. And, by the way, I appreciate your service in the State patrol. 

Mr. FULLER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you. And, Mr. Danko, I want to come back 

just to you on an infrastructure issue again. We talked a little bit 

earlier here in the testimony on distracted driving. Are there infrastructure things that can be done to mitigate or minimize distracted driving, or is that just solely in the purview of the driver 

himself? 

Mr. DANKO. There are those things that we—I mentioned earlier. 

Again, if you are distracted and you are leaving your lane of travel, 

an edge line rumble strip, a center line rumble strip, they have audible lines, thermoplastic-type lines that can be installed. That 

gives you the verbal sound of hitting the rumble strip, catches your 

attention, and you also feel the vibration in your vehicle. Those are 

probably trying to get your attention back when it is—you are, you 

know, dealing with people trying to text and whatever else they do. 

I don’t do it, myself. I am not—I am of that age that I kind of 

missed that. But the kids today, that is normal, everyday. How you 

do it? That is going to be a real challenge for all of us, going forward. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Nolan? 

[No response.] 

Mr. PETRI. No questions? Then Ms. Hahn? 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have too enjoyed the testimony today. I have learned a lot. Of course, we all know that 

women are the best drivers in the country. So, short of barring all 

men from the road, we are looking at how we make our roads safer 

and this committee is trying to look at how our safety grants are 

allocated to achieve that goal. 

It has been interesting to listen to the testimony about distracted 

drivers, impaired drivers, and the move towards more technology, 

as Dr. Sweatman talked about. I am wondering. It is such an interesting concept, but I would like to hear some of your views on 

whether or not we should focus more on funding emerging technology to remove that human element from driving. 

Particularly, I didn’t hear anybody talk about the concept of driverless vehicles. Is that a direction that we ought to be taking seriously? Is that really a concept that we could see in our lifetime? 

And is that where Congress should look to start spending our dollars to really get to a place, whether it is the connecting highways, 

where trucks and cars are speaking to each other, versus just, 

frankly, taking the human element all together out of driving and 

focusing on the driverless cars? I would like to hear Honorable 

Hart, Mr. Poole, Dr. Sweatman, and others on that concept. 

21 

Dr. SWEATMAN. I would be happy to start off. Absolutely. We 

have various levels of automation with us already. And we are 

going to be stepping through various levels of taking the driver out 

of the loop. That is an interesting process to contemplate, because 

we are going to have partially or fully automated vehicles out there 

mixing in with conventionally driven vehicles. We are going to have 

issues to do with recalling drivers’ attention. So if they are in a 

partially automated vehicle, and then some situation arises where 

they have to take over control, it is almost the opposite of the distraction problem we have at the moment, where drivers are supposed to be driving, but in fact, a lot of the time they are doing 

something else. 

In the future, we are going to be—they are not supposed to be 

driving, but occasionally they are going to have to do something. 

So we are very involved in all of that research, in terms of how the 

human factors of that plays in. But, at the end of the day, the technology will prove to be a lot more reliable than the human driver. 

And, really, that is the big hope for solving a lot of these problems. 

We have been doing what we call naturalistic driving studies for 

many years, where we put a lot of—among other things, we put 

video cameras in vehicles for a period of a year, or something like 

that. And it is amazing what people do in vehicles. And, when it 

comes to distraction, there are various phases that people go 

through. 

So, 5 or 10 years ago, we would see a lot of people making cell 

phone calls, handheld cell phone calls, in vehicles. We hardly see 

that at all now; they are mainly texting. So, as the personal devices 

change, so the distraction changes, the source of distraction, and 

that is going to keep happening until we have enough automation 

in the system to take—to reduce the risk back down again. That 

is the way we would view it. 

Ms. HAHN. I used to drive from my home in San Pedro to downtown Los Angeles, where I went to—I worked at the City Hall, 26 

miles. I one time, in the fast lane, followed a car where the driver 

was a guy, and he completely got dressed. It was a—I tried to get 

closer for a better look, but I was trying to keep my distance to be 

a safe driver. But, literally, put his shirt on, put his tie on, and 

then pulled out a razor and shaved. 

So, you are right. It is amazing what people do in their cars. 

Does anybody else want to comment on the driverless vehicle idea? 

Mr. HART. We have not investigated driverless vehicle crashes. 

We do investigate many accidents involving automation and the 

failure of the human-machine interface. The Washington Metro accident here in 2009 was partly an automation accident. Automation 

can be wonderful and can improve safety, and efficiency, and reliability. But problems arise when it fails. It must be designed in a 

manner that does not lead to accidents. 

Ms. HAHN. You know, I am glad you brought up the Metrolink 

tragedy, because that—you know, that was such a tragedy. It happened not too far from my district. And so, we have talked about 

enacting positive train control. And I do know that Metrolink is on 

track to complete that in time. 

However, there have been some other organizations in this country that have kind of fought that a little bit, and have been asking 

22 

for some extensions. What do you think—and I will end with this 

question—what do you think are the major impediments to us enacting positive train control? And is that something we should extend the deadline on, or should we really force those deadlines for 

a safer train experience for everyone? 

Mr. HART. The Metro accident I referenced was in Washington, 

DC, but the NTSB did investigate the 2008 Metrolink accident too. 

Ms. HAHN. OK. I was thinking—I am thinking about Metrolink. 

Mr. HART. That was certainly a tragic event. We have been recommending positive train control since at least the 1970s, and it 

has been on our Most Wanted List for most of that time. PTC 

makes up for human frailty. Redundancy is what it is all about. 

Humans make mistakes. Humans can be impaired; they can be distracted, and they can be fatigued. We are solidly behind positive 

train control. 

Ms. HAHN. OK, thanks. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Barletta? 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. And just for the record, Ms. Hahn, I 

am the father of four daughters, and my car insurance was $18,000 

a year before the insurance company dropped us. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HAHN. They didn’t even give them a chance. 

Mr. BARLETTA. My daughters hit people everywhere, everywhere. 

Mr. NOLAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BARLETTA. I would. 

Mr. NOLAN. As the father of four, I will never forget when my 

daughter called and said, ‘‘Dad, I got in an accident.’’ And of 

course, I said, ‘‘Are you OK, honey?’’ And she said, ‘‘No, I am fine.’’ 

She said, ‘‘I just wrecked the front end. Not the side that John 

wrecked, but the side that Leah wrecked.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. Well, my daughter, Hurricane Grace, one time 

called me and said, ‘‘Dad, I have bad news for you. I just rearended some lady at the mall. But don’t worry, nobody is hurt, nobody is mad.’’ I said, ‘‘Really, Grace? I happen to be a little mad 

right now, but I am glad everyone there is OK with it.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you for this very important hearing. I have 

two questions. 

One, Sgt. Fuller, during the consideration of H.R. 7, my amendment required the Department of Transportation to evaluate the 

safety of heavier and longer trucks. And this provision was included in the version that was signed into law. In their project plan 

and in public presentations, DOT has mentioned a joint data collection effort between The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Association that compares the 

out-of-state service violations for overweight trucks with trucks operating within the normal legal weight limits. 

Can you tell us what this effort has found so far? 

Mr. FULLER. The Size and Weight Committee of The Commercial 

Vehicle Safety Alliance has been gathering information over the 

last year or so. And I am not really sure of what the statistics are, 

as of right now. 

23 

I have been informed that we can get you all that data you requested. 

Mr. BARLETTA. If you would, thank you very much, I would appreciate that. 

Mr. FULLER. My pleasure, sir. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Danko, I grew up in the road construction 

business, and I started a line-painting company, so I come from 

your industry. And I know firsthand the benefits of infrastructure 

safety. We will never know the number of lives that we save; we 

never read the names in the paper the next day of the lives that 

were saved because of highly reflective markings, especially on a 

foggy day or a wintry day around the country. So I am very proud 

of the industry and the lives that have been saved. 

But I believe the Highway Safety Improvement Program, HSIP, 

is vital to the safety of our roadways. Could you elaborate on how 

HSIP can help prevent our Nation—prevent fatalities on our roadways? 

Mr. DANKO. Yes, Congressman. We all recognize that there has 

been a significant decrease in crashes since 2006, about a 22-percent reduction in fatalities. And so, we think the HSIP funding has 

gone a long way. But there is still a long way to go. There is still 

33,000-plus people dying annually on the roadway. So there are a 

lot of areas that need to be reviewed. There are dangerous 

stretches of highway. Most of the States have identified those 

areas. And they are in need of funds to correct them. 

There is a lot of interesting new technologies that have come out. 

One is a cable median barrier as being—catching on. And it helps 

eliminate crossover crashes on interstates and divided highways. 

And it is relatively inexpensive, compared to some of the other solutions that are out there. 

So there is a long way to go. We feel that there is—one of the 

other things that we would like to see is the private infrastructure 

people have a seat at the table when the next strategic highway 

safety plan is being done, because I think we can give a different 

perspective. And we have seen some States that have been reluctant to include our input. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Should we be considering not only extending the 

program, but increasing funding and ensuring that these funds are 

dedicated to saving lives on our roadways? 

Mr. DANKO. Yes. That is what we have asked for. And that is in 

our report, is that we think it is critical. There is too much to go. 

We have always said that a penalty for making a mistake shouldn’t 

be death. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I agree. I believe this program has a relatively 

low cost to the cost of a life. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Michaud? 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Yes, this 

question for Mr. Danko. I appreciate your testimony and ATSSA’s 

work on the Toward Zero Deaths campaign. Can you tell us why 

focusing on local and rural road safety is so important? 

Mr. DANKO. Yes. A couple of things. We have talked about the 

fatality rate being higher on the rural roads. A lot of them are in, 

you know, local jurisdiction that don’t have access to a dedicated 

highway engineer to be able to go out and do a roadway safety 

24 

audit and find the deficiencies. You know, we ask that the local 

people, the municipalities, be—get assistance from the States and 

be able to draw from the States’ engineers to help do those audits 

and identify areas that can be improved. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you. This question is for Dr. Sweatman. 

The—as you probably know, ITS America has given its Smart Solution Spotlight award to the Texas Permitting and Routing Optimizing System for oversized and overweight trucks. The system allows drivers of oversized loads to apply for a permit online and receive a customized route for the size and weight of the load. The 

routes avoid obstacles or bridges and pavement that could be damaged by the load, allowing truckers to operate in the safest and 

more efficient manner. 

My question is, if Congress allowed for changes in the size and 

weight limits to the extent necessary, do you see other States 

adopting systems similar to Texas, limiting heavier vehicles to specific road bridges or routes that are designed to handle those vehicles? 

Dr. SWEATMAN. Thank you, Congressman. Yes. So ITS America 

was very pleased to recognize this program maybe a year ago now 

with an award. And we followed up yesterday to see how things are 

going. Things are going extremely well with the program. And, in 

fact, it was launched this week in Kansas, as well. So it is already—other States are already starting to pick this up. 

So, just so everyone is clear, this is about oversized and overweight vehicles, permits for those vehicles. But the point of your 

question is, if it was considered that we would increase the productivity of heavy trucks, and particularly increase weight limits right 

across the board, across the country, how useful would this technology be. It would certainly be useful. 

The proposal, I believe, is for—to go to six-axle combinations, instead of predominantly five-axle. There are always some bridge 

considerations, bridge strength considerations that need to be 

taken into account. So this kind of online system, or this automated way of using technology to figure out where these vehicles 

could not go or should not go would be extremely useful. 

I would add that I believe this is part of the package of technology that we are overdue for deploying in the heavy truck industry. There are many beneficial safety technologies. You know, we 

have tested a few at UMTRI over the past few years where we see 

tremendous benefit. So—whether it is stability control systems, 

crash imminent braking systems. 

And so, what we need to do is, if we are going to have more productivity on all trucks, we need to raise the bar on safety at the 

same time, and make sure that that arrangement—that we get a 

good deal out of this. And so, the use of these online systems would 

certainly be part of that, as well as new technologies in the vehicles. 

Mr. MICHAUD. And part of that safety would be, like, going from 

a five-axle to a six-axle to deal with stoppage of the vehicle and distribution of the weight load on the tractor trailer. Is that correct? 

Dr. SWEATMAN. Well, I mean, the way it works out, when you go 

to a six-axle vehicle, the braking is actually greater because you 

end up with less load per axle. You have got more brakes and less 

25 

load per axle, I should have said. So, all of those issues are taken 

into account. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Well, great. Thank you very much. 

Dr. SWEATMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MICHAUD. And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Williams? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you all’s 

testimony today, and I always like to hear about Texas, I am from 

Texas. So we like to hear the good things that we are doing there. 

My first question would be to you, Chairman Hart. Vehicle maintenance violations account for more than 70 percent of total violations with the compliance safety and accountability program. Yet, 

according to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s own 

large truck and bus crash facts of 2011, fewer than 5 percent of all 

truck-involved fatality crashes saw a vehicle-related factor assigned 

to the truck in the crash. Is this focus on vehicle maintenance by 

law enforcement the best use, do you feel, of motor carrier safety 

assistance program funds, especially based on these figures, and 

the limitations of the trust funding that we have? 

Mr. HART. Thank you for the question. Vehicle maintenance has 

been an issue for commercial motor vehicles, and we have made 

recommendations about it. Recently, for example, we investigated 

four commercial vehicle accidents in which the carriers passed a 

compliance review, and then had an accident. In the post-accident 

safety compliance review, they failed, and part of the failure related to maintenance. Maintenance has been a big issue for us, and 

we are pursuing it vigorously, because we think that vehicle maintenance continues to be a safety problem. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. And I guess, Dr. Sweatman, I have 

got two questions for you. What role will technology play in increasing safety of our Nation’s traveling public over the next 20 

years? I am in the automobile business; I would like to hear that. 

Dr. SWEATMAN. Well, my answer to that would be a transformational role. We believe that we can get to a situation—I already mentioned that the connected vehicle programs we are working on have the potential for an 80-percent reduction in nonimpaired multivehicle crashes. That is tremendous. That is a tremendous benefit. When we mix in with that increasing automation 

at the same time—so those two are coming together—we have created a lot of excitement with the connected vehicles, now there is 

even more excitement about automated vehicles in the industry. 

What the automotive industry is doing with—I talked about the 

sensors being deployed in vehicles now, the intelligence that is 

being deployed in vehicles at a very reasonable cost. And we should 

bear in mind that the connected vehicle program was really predicated on being highly affordable, that this form of communication 

is affordable. And the sensors that we were adding to vehicles, the 

prices on those are coming down because we are getting the volume 

up. 

So, we are in a very exciting time. We are going to see a rapid 

rate of change. We have to be sure that the level of automation, 

as it increases, that it interacts well with human operators. And 

that issue has come up on the panel a couple of times, so we think 

26 

that is important. But we think the future is very bright, especially—you mentioned a 20-year timeframe. We are going to be in 

a completely different world with our mobility system by then. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Keeping those prices down is important. My next 

question to you—I am a private sector guy. We talked about the 

private sector today and the importance of it. How can Federal 

grant funding be better leveraged, in your mind, with the private 

sector funds to deploy what—these technologies we are talking 

about and intelligent transportation systems that go with it? 

Dr. SWEATMAN. I think this is critically important, and we are 

seeing, in the connected vehicle program, that this can be done 

very effectively. So the investment that the USDOT has made 

mainly with the industry, the automotive industry in Michigan, all 

working together—so we have had automakers working together 

for 10 years to develop this connected vehicle technology. 

So, by the time—the role for the Federal Government is to provide the funding to develop the overall system. What is the architecture? What are the basic standards that need to be applied? And 

once we have that, and once we have that certainty so that General 

Motors know that if they get a signal from a Toyota, they can 

rely—they know what that signal means. That signal is standardized. And that is what we call a basic safety message. That work 

is being done. It is being done under Federal funding. And now we 

are in a position where we will see rapid deployment, I believe, of 

this technology. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Private-public is a good partnership. 

Dr. SWEATMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to this committee, too. Thank you for all who have gone through this hearing. 

This committee, I believe, is a committee that has showed true bipartisanship in addressing many issues that are important to the 

infrastructure of this Nation. I think you are going to see wide 

agreement on many of the proposals that we hope to come out of 

this committee room in the near future, like we have in the past, 

in regards to WRDA and others. 

I too agree with many on the panel and many in this room that 

we do need a longer term infrastructure bill that is going to address many of our infrastructure programs and safety programs in 

the long term, rather than a short term. And with that—I don’t 

want to rehash much of what has already been asked. So I will go 

straight to some issues that I don’t think have been addressed. 

You know, when I was a kid, it was always great to be able to 

get my mom and dad’s permission to ride my bike to school the few 

days that they would let me. Obviously, they wouldn’t have let me 

today in Illinois, with – 16 wind chill. But I know that in Illinois 

the Safe Routes to School program is helping to make those instances safer. Many of my urban areas in Champaign, Urbana, and 

Edwardsville, and other parts of central Illinois, they have implemented some of these safety measures by partnering with the State 

of Illinois to create safer routes to school. 

And I was wondering, Mr. Danko, if I could start with you. Can 

you comment on the usefulness of this Safe Routes to School proVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:17 Jul 03, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\1-28-1~1\86439.TXT JEAN
27 

gram, and whether or not you have seen a decrease in traffic fatalities near schools since its implementation? 

Mr. DANKO. I cannot speak to the fact of the decrease in fatalities and accidents. I can get you some information and come back 

for the record on that. But I don’t have that available. 

But as an association, we do have a program that, you know, 

talks to that. And we think we have seen a couple of instances 

where we have done teen school kids doing assessments on safe 

routes to schools, and trying to get a sense of what they see, you 

know, from a user standpoint, versus a engineer or a DOT person. 

So—and we have seen some success in that. We have done a couple 

of pilot programs on that in a few of the places that we have been. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you. Mr. Hart, do you have any comments on maybe a decrease? Any statistics on decreasing traffic fatalities after projects have been implemented around schools nationwide? 

Mr. HART. We don’t have much experience with student transportation except as it relates to schoolbuses. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. OK. Mr. Poole, thank you for what you do. Always enjoy working with our State department of transportation, 

and most of the time with our Governor’s office. 

You know, this program was changed in MAP–21 somewhat. And 

I wanted to ask you. Do you see any more recommendations that 

you would have coming from the State to help us help you even 

more to implement more safety measures around schools? 

Mr. POOLE. Around schools, and that is great. You know, we 

have been—if you recall, in MAP–21 we worked with NHTSA in 

codifying 15 different performance measures. And bicyclists were 

not one of them. And we are looking and working with NHTSA to 

codify one of those additional performance measures in a reauthorization. 

And I will give you an example. In Tennessee, the Safe Routes 

to Schools program is not implemented by my office, but we work 

very closely with the DOT, where they have a Safe Routes to 

Schools coordinator. It has been exceptionally successful in the 

State of Tennessee. I know that there are many communities that 

have benefitted from additional safety measures in and around 

schools, and it may not have even resulted in a fatality, but maybe 

a crash, or maybe an injury. And we have seen, in Tennessee, a 

growth in that program, and a reduction in injuries and fatalities. 

Mr. DAVIS. Great. Illinois seems to be working well, too. If any 

of the panelists have suggestions to this committee to make it easier for kids walking and riding to school, that is something that I 

think I am very—I know I am very interested in, in working with 

each of you to continue to make it easier for especially States like 

Tennessee and Illinois and others to actually access these safety 

programs as we move forward. 

So, thank you again for your testimony today. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, which is over. 

Mr. PETRI. Six seconds. Mr. Mica? 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. And thank you for conducting this important hearing on highway safety, and seeing how effective the 

money that the Federal Government spends for safety. Staff is telling me we doubled safety money in MAP–21, and very pleased 

28 

how—people go off the charts when you lose lives in different types 

of scenarios, and we were losing about 43,000 people, I think, a 

year on the highways. That went down to 33,000, I believe. 

Some of the improvements and some of this money can be used 

for simple things like—I found installing the medians, the guardrails, and keeping traffic separated especially—head-on collisions, 

that was an effective use of money. 

I got—I have got—a couple people got my attention recently. One 

truck executive in Florida got me aside and says, ‘‘You all got to 

stop doing that crap you are doing, pulling those people over and 

looking at those logs and all that. That is such a waste of money.’’ 

He says, ‘‘There is technology now. What are you guys doing in 

Washington? There is technology now’’—they got some sort of technology he described to me that they—you can look at their eyes, 

just like a DUI test, and see if people are fatigued. He says we do— 

I think in the private sector he said, ‘‘We have been doing this. We 

can do that. And you should get those drivers off. They are cooking 

the logs and that stuff can be thwarted by a 15-year-old.’’ Who 

wants to respond? 

[No response.] 

Mr. MICA. How about the New York commercial guy? What do 

you think? Is there something out there we can do? Have you 

seen—is anyone aware of the technology I am talking about? 

Mr. FULLER. No, I am not. 

Mr. MICA. Well, we sure as hell need to find out, staff and others. 

But he is telling me that you can access, through the pupils, I 

guess, how fatigued they are. 

So, I just raise that to staff and others. I would like to find out. 

And if nobody here knows about it, I guess we are in big trouble. 

But he sure as hell did. 

Mr. HART. May I comment on that, momentarily? 

Mr. MICA. Yes, very briefly. 

Mr. HART. Yes. There are—— 

Mr. MICA. Don’t take too much of my time—— 

Mr. HART [continuing]. Some technologies aimed at detecting fatigue. One detects whether steering wheel motions are normal or 

indicative of fatigue. 

Mr. MICA. No, but this is, you know, stop them or—the sites, 

and—if we aren’t giving money for research to do something like 

that, and that technology is available, shame on us. If you have 

ever seen a large commercial vehicle in a crash, and the results, 

it is something you don’t even want to think about. And unfortunately, we have a lot of those. 

Someone else got my ear and said, ‘‘What the hell are you people 

doing in Washington?’’ Of course, you know, this administration is 

renowned for its pumping out rules. And they said, ‘‘They just 

pumped out a rule that you only need the safety glass in the front 

windshield,’’ and showed me the statistics: 1,000 people went out 

the side windows because you don’t have the proper safety glass. 

A rule could be—I mean it could be set by rule or by a law. Anyone 

familiar with that? That’s just 1,000 people killed with that. 

[No response.] 

Mr. MICA. No? OK. Well, I think you have to look at where we 

are losing people on the road. I mean life is—I am talking about 

29 

lives. And you have got tens of thousands who are injured. What 

is the biggest thing we should be attacking in highway safety to 

save lives? Start right there, and each of you finish and tell me in 

30 seconds or less. Well, you got 29. Go ahead. 

Mr. HART. If someone is ejected out the window, that means that 

person was not wearing a seatbelt. 

Mr. MICA. Well, I thought of that, too, but they said—and I don’t 

know how—you know, I didn’t analyze all those cases, but they— 

the people who hit the windshield survived. That kept them in the 

car. 

But, again, my question was what safety improvement could we 

do to save the most lives. Quick. Mr. Hart? 

Mr. HART. Yes. Again, the biggest single one has been seatbelts, 

followed closely by airbags. 

Mr. MICA. OK. 

Mr. HART. Keep people restrained in the car. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Quick. Mr. Danko, what do you think? 

Mr. DANKO. Brighter signs. 

Mr. MICA. Brighter signs? 

Mr. DANKO. Bigger font, easier-to-read signs. 

Mr. MICA. Especially with the aging population demographics. 

Mr. DANKO. Correct. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Fuller? 

Mr. FULLER. Inspections on the motor carrier trucks going down 

the roads. 

Mr. MICA. More inspections? 

Mr. FULLER. More inspections. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Poole? 

Mr. POOLE. Focusing on behavioral highway safety: impaired 

driving, seatbelts, speed, distracted driving. 

Mr. MICA. OK. And, finally, Mr.—— 

Dr. SWEATMAN. Technologies that avoid crashes. May I reflect a 

little on the comment you made about fatigued truck drivers? We 

have seen that. We have done major studies of some of these technologies. And whether or not they are fatigued, whether or not the 

test would tell you they are fatigued, the next thing that happens 

is they start to run out of the lane. But if they have a lane departure warning system in that vehicle, that driver wakes up and corrects and goes back into the lane. So—— 

Mr. MICA. Well, some of those things we have started to do in 

repaving and things of that sort. 

Dr. SWEATMAN. Yes. But it can be in the vehicle, or it could be 

on the highway, as well. 

Mr. MICA. Right, yes. 

Dr. SWEATMAN. But those things are very effective in dealing 

with that problem. 

Mr. MICA. OK. 

Dr. SWEATMAN. But the problem of figuring out whether someone 

is fatigued or sleepy, or whatever, is a little more complicated. 

Mr. MICA. Well, finally—and I am over my time—just ask the 

staff—Dan, and some of the others—check on that technology, and 

let’s see if that merits further consideration. He was pretty adamant about it. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Ms. Hahn, one more question. 

30 

Ms. HAHN. Yes, thank you. One more. So this is for the Honorable Hart. So, at the average age of 43 years old, the typical U.S. 

bridge is nearing the end of its 50-year design life, and thousands 

are far older than that. Structurally deficient bridges are more 

than 20 years older, on an average. And although we have nearly 

70,000 structurally deficient bridges, and almost half of our highways are rated below good condition, MAP–21 eliminated the 

former highway bridge program which distributed Federal money 

specifically for bridge repair. 

I introduced a bill earlier in Congress that would authorize DOT 

to provide grants to States to repair or replace bridges the Federal 

Highway Administration has found to be structurally deficient. So, 

with the I–5 bridge being the second collapse of an interstate 

bridge in 6 years, I think we should be devoting even more dedicated funding towards maintaining our roads and bridges, not less. 

And while MAP–21 requires that States develop performance 

standards for the bridges, it does not make the determination as 

to which bridges should benefit from Federal funding. 

So, as this committee is focusing on developing a new highway 

reauthorization bill, how can we ensure that we are allocating resources in a way that targets our Nation’s most vulnerable bridges? 

I don’t care what mode of transportation you are talking about, 

there—our bridges are really in disrepair. And it worries me a lot 

that—the kinds of lives that would be lost and the disruption of everything from cargo movement to just regular commuter traffic 

that would be disrupted if our—if a bridge collapsed. 

So, how can we do a better job in that respect, Mr. Hart? 

Mr. HART. Aging infrastructure has been a concern for us. Not 

only bridges but also other infrastructure can be problematic without the prescribed inspections and maintenance. 

Ms. HAHN. You have any suggestions on how we might do better 

as this—I mean this is what this hearing is about, is, you know, 

how do we improve our allocation of these safety grants. 

Mr. HART. I will submit the NTSB’s recommendations on infrastructure to the committee for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

Aging Infrastructure Recommendations 

Accident Date: 07/10/2006 

Accident No.: HWY08MH024 

Boston, MA, Accident Synopsis: 

About 11:01 p.m. eastern daylight time on Monday, July 10, 2006, a 1991 

Buick passenger car occupied by a 46-year-old driver and his 38-year-old 

wife was traveling eastbound in the Interstate 90 (I–90) connector tunnel 

in Boston, Massachusetts, en route to Logan International Airport. As the 

car approached the end of the I–90 connector tunnel, a section of the tunnel’s suspended concrete ceiling became detached from the tunnel roof and 

fell onto the vehicle. Concrete panels from the ceiling crushed the right side 

of the vehicle roof as the car came to rest against the north wall of the tunnel. A total of about 26 tons of concrete and associated suspension hardware fell onto the vehicle and the roadway. The driver’s wife, occupying the 

right-front seat, was fatally injured; the driver was able to escape with 

minor injuries. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

• Rec #: H–07–017 

NTSB Status: Open—Acceptable Response 

TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: Seek legislation authorizing the Federal Highway Administration to establish a mandatory 

31 

tunnel inspection program similar to the National Bridge Inspection Program. 

• Rec #: H–07–018 

NTSB Status: Open—Acceptable Response 

TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: Once provided with 

legislative authority to establish a mandatory tunnel inspection program as 

indicated in Safety Recommendation H–07–17, develop and implement a 

tunnel inspection program that will identity critical inspection elements 

and specify an appropriate inspection frequency. 

• Rec #: H–07–015 

NTSB Status: Closed—Acceptable Action 

TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: In cooperation with 

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

develop standards and protocols for the testing of adhesive anchors to be 

used in sustained tensile-load overhead highway applications. These standards and protocols should consider site-specific ultimate strength values as 

well as the creep characteristics of the adhesive over the expected life of 

the structure. 

The companion recommendation to AASHTO is H–07–020 which is also 

Closed—Acceptable Action. 

Accident Date: 08/01/2007 

Accident No.: HWY07MH024 

Minneapolis, MN, Accident Synopsis: 

About 6:05 p.m. central daylight time on Wednesday, August 1, 2007, the 

eight-lane, 1,907-foot-long I–35W highway bridge over the Mississippi River 

in Minneapolis, Minnesota, experienced a catastrophic failure in the main 

span of the deck truss. As a result, 1,000 feet of the deck truss collapsed, 

with about 456 feet of the main span falling 108 feet into the 15-foot-deep 

river. A total of 111 vehicles were on the portion of the bridge that collapsed. Of these, 17 were recovered from the water. As a result of the 

bridge collapse, 13 people died, and 145 people were injured. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: • Rec #: H–08–001 

NTSB Status: Closed—Acceptable Alternate Action 

Issue date: 1/15/2008 

TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: For all non-load-pathredundant steel truss bridges within the National Bridge Inventory, require 

that bridge owners conduct load capacity calculations to verify that the 

stress levels in all structural elements, including gusset plates, remain 

within applicable requirements whenever planned modifications or operational changes may significantly increase stresses. 

• Rec #: H–08–018 

NTSB Status: Closed—Acceptable Action 

TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: Require that bridge 

owners assess the truss bridges in their inventories to identify locations 

where visual inspections may not detect gusset plate corrosion and where, 

therefore, appropriate nondestructive evaluation technologies should be 

used to assess gusset plate condition. 

• Rec #: H–08–019 

NTSB Status: Closed—Acceptable Action 

TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: Modify the approved 

bridge inspector training as follows: (1) update the National Highway Institute training courses to address inspection techniques and conditions specific to gusset plates, emphasizing issues associated with gusset plate distortion as well as the use of nondestructive evaluation at locations where 

visual inspections may be inadequate to assess and quantify such conditions as section loss due to corrosion; and, (2) at a minimum, include revisions to reference material, such as the Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual, and address any newly developed gusset plate condition ratings in the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials commonly recognized (CoRe) structural elements. 

• Rec #: H–08–022 

NTSB Status: Closed—Acceptable Action 

TO THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS: Modify the guidance and procedures in your 

32 

Manual for Bridge Evaluation to include evaluating the capacity of gusset 

plates as part of the load rating calculations performed for non-load-pathredundant steel truss bridges. 

• Rec #: H–08–024 

NTSB Status: Closed—Acceptable Action 

TO THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS: Develop specifications and guidelines for use by 

bridge owners to ensure that construction loads and stockpiled raw materials placed on a structure during construction or maintenance projects do 

not overload the structural members or their connections. 

• Rec #: H–08–025 

NTSB Status: Closed—Acceptable Action 

TO THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS: Include gusset plates as a commonly recognized 

structural element (CoRe) and develop guidance for bridge owners in tracking and responding to potentially damaging conditions in gusset plates, 

such as corrosion and distortion; and revise the AASHTO Guide for Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Structural Elements to incorporate this new information. 

Accident Date: 08/10/2008 

Accident No.: HWY08FH023 

Annapolis, MD, Accident Synopsis: 

On August 10, 2008, at 3:55 a.m., the driver of a tractor-trailer took evasive 

action to avoid a Chevrolet Camaro passenger vehicle that had departed its 

travel lane on the William Preston Lane, Jr., Memorial Bridge (Chesapeake 

Bay Bridge) near Annapolis, Maryland. The Camaro struck the tractortrailer and rotated 180 degrees but remained on the bridge; the tractortrailer, traveling at a police-reported speed of more than 40 mph, crossed 

to the opposite side of the bridge, striking the bridge barrier at a 40-degree 

angle and departing the bridge. The tractor-trailer’s impact to the bridge 

railing caused an approximately 24-foot length of the barrier to dislodge 

and a 12-foot length of the displaced barrier to completely separate and fall 

into the Chesapeake Bay. The driver of the commercial vehicle was killed; 

the driver of the Camaro sustained serious injuries and the Camaro’s passenger sustained minor injuries; and the driver and passenger of a third vehicle, a Toyota Prius that was struck by the trailer, were uninjured. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

• Rec #: H–10–017 

NTSB Status: Closed—Acceptable Action 

TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: Inform State departments of transportation of the risks of steel reinforcement corrosion and 

voids in concrete barriers and barrier attachment points and of the nondestructive evaluation methods used by the Maryland Transportation Authority to identify internal corrosion problems. 

• Rec #: H–10–018 

NTSB Status: Closed—Acceptable Action 

TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION: Expand the research 

and development of nondestructive evaluation technologies to develop 

bridge inspection methods that augment visual inspections; offer reliable 

measurement techniques; and are practical, both in terms of time and cost, 

for field inspection work; and promote the use of these technologies by 

bridge owners. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me another question. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony and response to questions. It has been a very interesting hearing. 

I would ask unanimous consent that letters or statements from 

the American Bus Association and the American Motorcyclist Association be incorporated in the record of this hearing, and ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing remain open until 

such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions 

that may be submitted to them in writing, and unanimous consent 

33 

that the record remain open for 15 days for additional comments 

and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included 

in the record of today’s hearing. 

Is there any objection to any of those requests? 

[No response.] 

Mr. PETRI. Hearing none, without objection, so ordered. 

[The information submitted by Mr. Petri for the record follows:] 

34 


Insert offset folio 5 here 86439.005
35 


Insert offset folio 6 here 86439.006
36 


Insert offset folio 7 here 86439.007
37 


Insert offset folio 8 here 86439.008
38 

Mr. PETRI. And this subcommittee hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

39 


Insert offset folio 9 here 86439.009
40 


Insert offset folio 10 here 86439.010
41 


Insert offset folio 11 here 86439.011
42 


Insert offset folio 12 here 86439.012
43 


Insert offset folio 13 here 86439.013
44 


Insert offset folio 14 here 86439.014
45 


Insert offset folio 15 here 86439.015
46 


Insert offset folio 16 here 86439.016
47 


Insert offset folio 17 here 86439.017
48 


Insert offset folio 18 here 86439.018
49 


Insert offset folio 19 here 86439.019
50 


Insert offset folio 20 here 86439.020
51 


Insert offset folio 21 here 86439.021
52 


Insert offset folio 22 here 86439.022
53 


Insert offset folio 23 here 86439.023
54 


Insert offset folio 24 here 86439.024
55 


Insert offset folio 25 here 86439.025
56 


Insert offset folio 26 here 86439.026
57 


Insert offset folio 27 here 86439.027
58 


Insert offset folio 28 here 86439.028
59 


Insert offset folio 29 here 86439.029
60 


Insert offset folio 30 here 86439.030
61 


Insert offset folio 31 here 86439.031
62 


Insert offset folio 32 here 86439.032
63 


Insert offset folio 33 here 86439.033
64 


Insert offset folio 34 here 86439.034
65 


Insert offset folio 35 here 86439.035
66 


Insert offset folio 36 here 86439.036
67 


Insert offset folio 37 here 86439.037
68 


Insert offset folio 38 here 86439.038
69 


Insert offset folio 39 here 86439.039
70 


Insert offset folio 40 here 86439.040
71 


Insert offset folio 41 here 86439.041
72 


Insert offset folio 42 here 86439.042
73 


Insert offset folio 43 here 86439.043
74 


Insert offset folio 44 here 86439.044
75 


Insert offset folio 45 here 86439.045
76 


Insert offset folio 46 here 86439.046
77 


Insert offset folio 47 here 86439.047
78 


Insert offset folio 48 here 86439.048
79 


Insert offset folio 49 here 86439.049
80 


Insert offset folio 50 here 86439.050
81 


Insert offset folio 51 here 86439.051
82 


Insert offset folio 52 here 86439.052
83 


Insert offset folio 53 here 86439.053
84 


Insert offset folio 54 here 86439.054
85 


Insert offset folio 55 here 86439.055
86 


Insert offset folio 56 here 86439.056
87 


Insert offset folio 57 here 86439.057
88 


Insert offset folio 58 here 86439.058
89 


Insert offset folio 59 here 86439.059
90 


Insert offset folio 60 here 86439.060
91 


Insert offset folio 61 here 86439.061
92 


Insert offset folio 62 here 86439.062
93 


Insert offset folio 63 here 86439.063
94 


Insert offset folio 64 here 86439.064
95 


Insert offset folio 65 here 86439.065
96 


Insert offset folio 66 here 86439.066
97 


Insert offset folio 67 here 86439.067
98 


Insert offset folio 68 here 86439.068
99 


Insert offset folio 69 here 86439.069
100 


Insert offset folio 70 here 86439.070
101 


Insert offset folio 71 here 86439.071
102 


Insert offset folio 72 here 86439.072
103 


Insert offset folio 73 here 86439.073
104 


Insert offset folio 74 here 86439.074
105 


Insert offset folio 75 here 86439.075
106 


Insert offset folio 76 here 86439.076
107 


Insert offset folio 77 here 86439.077
108 


Insert offset folio 78 here 86439.078
109 


Insert offset folio 79 here 86439.079
110 


Insert offset folio 80 here 86439.080
111 


Insert offset folio 81 here 86439.081
112 


Insert offset folio 82 here 86439.082
113 


Insert offset folio 83 here 86439.083
114 


Insert offset folio 84 here 86439.084
115 


Insert offset folio 85 here 86439.085
116 


Insert offset folio 86 here 86439.086
117 


Insert offset folio 87 here 86439.087
118 


Insert offset folio 88 here 86439.088
119 


Insert offset folio 89 here 86439.089
120 


Insert offset folio 90 here 86439.090
121 


Insert offset folio 91 here 86439.091
122 


Insert offset folio 92 here 86439.092
123 


Insert offset folio 93 here 86439.093
124 


Insert offset folio 94 here 86439.094
125 


Insert offset folio 95 here 86439.095
126 


Insert offset folio 96 here 86439.096
127 


Insert offset folio 97 here 86439.097
128 


Insert offset folio 98 here 86439.098
129 


Insert offset folio 99 here 86439.099
130 


Insert offset folio 100 here 86439.100
131 


Insert offset folio 101 here 86439.101
132 


Insert offset folio 102 here 86439.102
133 


Insert offset folio 103 here 86439.103
134 


Insert offset folio 104 here 86439.104
135 


Insert offset folio 105 here 86439.105
136 


Insert offset folio 106 here 86439.106
137 


Insert offset folio 107 here 86439.107
138 


Insert offset folio 108 here 86439.108
139 


Insert offset folio 109 here 86439.109
140 


Insert offset folio 110 here 86439.110
141 


Insert offset folio 111 here 86439.111
142 


Insert offset folio 112 here 86439.112
143 


Insert offset folio 113 here 86439.113
144 


Insert offset folio 114 here 86439.114
145 


Insert offset folio 115 here 86439.115
146 


Insert offset folio 116 here 86439.116
147 


Insert offset folio 117 here 86439.117
148 


Insert offset folio 118 here 86439.118
149 


Insert offset folio 119 here 86439.119
150 


Insert offset folio 120 here 86439.120
151 


Insert offset folio 121 here 86439.121
152 


Insert offset folio 122 here 86439.122
153 


Insert offset folio 123 here 86439.123
154 


Insert offset folio 124 here 86439.124
155 


Insert offset folio 125 here 86439.125
156 


Insert offset folio 126 here 86439.126
157 


Insert offset folio 127 here 86439.127
158 


Insert offset folio 128 here 86439.128
159 


Insert offset folio 129 here 86439.129
160 


Insert offset folio 130 here 86439.130
161 


Insert offset folio 131 here 86439.131
162 


Insert offset folio 132 here 86439.132
163 


Insert offset folio 133 here 86439.133
164 


Insert offset folio 134 here 86439.134
165 


Insert offset folio 135 here 86439.135
166 


Insert offset folio 136 here 86439.136
167 


Insert offset folio 137 here 86439.137
168 


Insert offset folio 138 here 86439.138
169 


Insert offset folio 139 here 86439.139
170 


Insert offset folio 140 here 86439.140
171 


Insert offset folio 141 here 86439.141
172 


Insert offset folio 142 here 86439.142
173 


Insert offset folio 143 here 86439.143
174 


Insert offset folio 144 here 86439.144
175 


Insert offset folio 145 here 86439.145
176 


Insert offset folio 146 here 86439.146
177 


Insert offset folio 147 here 86439.147
178 


Insert offset folio 148 here 86439.148
179 


Insert offset folio 149 here 86439.149
180 


Insert offset folio 150 here 86439.150
181 


Insert offset folio 151 here 86439.151
182 


Insert offset folio 152 here 86439.152
183 


Insert offset folio 153 here 86439.153
184 


Insert offset folio 154 here 86439.154
185 


Insert offset folio 155 here 86439.155
186 


Insert offset folio 156 here 86439.156
187 


Insert offset folio 157 here 86439.157
188 


Insert offset folio 158 here 86439.158
189 


Insert offset folio 159 here 86439.159
190 


Insert offset folio 160 here 86439.160
191 


Insert offset folio 161 here 86439.161
192 


Insert offset folio 162 here 86439.162
193 


Insert offset folio 163 here 86439.163
194 


Insert offset folio 164 here 86439.164
195 


Insert offset folio 165 here 86439.165
196 


Insert offset folio 166 here 86439.166
197 


Insert offset folio 167 here 86439.167
198 


Insert offset folio 168 here 86439.168
199 


Insert offset folio 169 here 86439.169
200 


Insert offset folio 170 here 86439.170
201 


Insert offset folio 171 here 86439.171
202 


Insert offset folio 172 here 86439.172
203 


Insert offset folio 173 here 86439.173
204 


Insert offset folio 174 here 86439.174
205 


Insert offset folio 175 here 86439.175
206 


Insert offset folio 176 here 86439.176
207 


Insert offset folio 177 here 86439.177
208 


Insert offset folio 178 here 86439.178
209 


Insert offset folio 179 here 86439.179
210 


Insert offset folio 180 here 86439.180
211 


Insert offset folio 181 here 86439.181
212 


Insert offset folio 182 here 86439.182
213 


Insert offset folio 183 here 86439.183
214 


Insert offset folio 184 here 86439.184
215 


Insert offset folio 185 here 86439.185
216 


Insert offset folio 186 here 86439.186
217 


Insert offset folio 187 here 86439.187
218 


Insert offset folio 188 here 86439.188
219 


Insert offset folio 189 here 86439.189
220 


Insert offset folio 190 here 86439.190
221 


Insert offset folio 191 here 86439.191
222 


Insert offset folio 192 here 86439.192
223 


Insert offset folio 193 here 86439.193
224 


Insert offset folio 194 here 86439.194
225 


Insert offset folio 195 here 86439.195
226 


Insert offset folio 196 here 86439.196
227 


Insert offset folio 197 here 86439.197
228 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 198 here 86439.198