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

87–049 PDF 2014

OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S IMPLEMENTATION OF MAP–21 

AND FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET REQUEST 

FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

(113–59) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 12, 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 .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Peter M. Rogoff, Acting Under Secretary for Policy, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation ....................................................... 4 

Gregory G. Nadeau, Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration . 4 

Therese W. McMillan, Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration 4 

Hon. Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ........................................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. David Friedman, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 4 

PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE 

RECORD SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Peter M. Rogoff: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, 

a Delegate in Congress from the District of Columbia .............................. 50 

Gregory G. Nadeau: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Thomas E. Petri, of Wisconsin ........................................................ 73 

Hon. Sam Graves, of Missouri .................................................................. 75 

Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., of Tennessee .................................................. 76 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, of California .................................................. 76 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, of Oregon ............................................................ 78 

Therese W. McMillan: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 81 

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ................................ 89 

Hon. Anne S. Ferro: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Thomas E. Petri, of Wisconsin ........................................................ 96 

Hon. Sam Graves, of Missouri .................................................................. 100 

Hon. David Friedman: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 101 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Bill Shuster, of Pennsylvania .......................................................... 106 

Hon. Thomas E. Petri, of Wisconsin ........................................................ 106 

Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., of Tennessee .................................................. 107 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Daphne Izer, founder, Parents Against Tired Truckers, and Christina 

Mahaney; letter to Hon. Michael E. Michaud, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Maine, March 27, 2014 .......................................................... 109 

National Congress of American Indians, written testimony ................................ 111 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 87049.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 87049.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 87049.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 87049.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 87049.005
(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION’S IMPLEMENTATION OF 

MAP–21 AND FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET REQUEST FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 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 oversight of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s 

implementation of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, better known as MAP–21, and the President’s budget 

year 2015 request. 

MAP–21 was signed into law by the President on July 6, 2012, 

and authorizes the Federal Highway Transit and Highway Safety 

Programs through September 30, 2014. I was pleased to hear the 

Department intends to send a reauthorization proposal to Congress 

some time in the near future. Reauthorizing these programs is a 

priority for the committee, and we look forward to reviewing the 

Department’s proposals. 

MAP–21 consolidated many Federal programs that were duplicative or were not in the Federal interest. These changes provide 

greater focus on the core national systems, and give our non-Federal partners greater flexibility to meet their transportation needs. 

MAP–21 made major reforms and improvements to the project 

delivery process. It currently could take almost 14 years for a 

transportation project to be completed if Federal funding is involved, which is clearly unacceptable. Some of the MAP–21 reforms 

include allowing Federal agencies to review projects concurrently, 

penalties for agencies that don’t meet project review deadlines, and 

expanding categorical exclusions for projects in the existing right of 

way, or with limited Federal investment. These reforms will help 

cut bureaucratic red tape and quickly deliver the economic and 

safety benefits of transportation projects. The Department has 

started implementing these project delivery provisions, and I look 

forward to discussing their progress. 

MAP–21 also increases transparency and accountability by requiring States and transit agencies, in conjunction with metropolitan planning organizations, to incorporate performance targets into 

2 

their long-term transportation plans. These performance targets 

will help our non-Federal partners focus their limited Federal resources on projects that have the greatest benefit. 

MAP–21 also creates a program to provide relief for public transportation systems that were affected by a natural disaster or catastrophic failure. Previously, transit agencies had to work through 

FEMA to replace equipment or rebuild their systems after a disaster. But after Katrina, transit agencies sought an emergency program similar to the emergency relief program operated by the Federal Highway Administration. This program was utilized by the 

States and communities impacted by Hurricane Sandy. 

Numerous trucking safety provisions were included in MAP–21, 

which reflects Congress’ commitment to keeping truckers and the 

traveling public safe. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

is tasked with implementing new regulations on electronic logging 

devices, hazardous material safety permits, a drug and alcohol 

clearinghouse for commercial drivers, and motor carrier registration requirements related to unsafe reincarnated carriers. These 

regulations will keep drivers safe, while maximizing the efficiency 

of the trucking industry. 

Congress also recognized that new highway safety challenges 

have emerged. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is required to implement a National Priority Safety Program 

that incentivizes States to pass and enforce laws that address important safety issues. The program focuses on impaired driving 

countermeasures, occupant protection, motorcycle safety, distracted 

driving, and graduated drivers licensing. These reforms are only 

part of the sweeping changes made in MAP–21. 

I look forward to hearing from the Department on the progress 

it has made implementing the reforms that I have highlighted, and 

others that were included in MAP–21. 

March 5th, the President released his budget year 2015 request 

for the Department. The request also included the administration’s 

vision for a 4-year, $302 billion surface transportation reauthorization bill. 

I look forward to discussing the details of the budget request. 

And now I recognize our ranking member, Eleanor Holmes Norton, for any opening statements she may wish to make. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank 

you for this and the continuing series of very important hearings 

that the committee and the subcommittee have been holding on 

MAP–21, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on the 

progress they are making on regulations under MAP–21, and whatever information they can provide us on the President’s own proposal. 

Mr. Chairman, the changes that we enacted in MAP–21 are proving what I think we all recognized, and that is many years to put 

in place to bring about the reforms, rather considerable reforms 

and vision there. That was a policy-heavy authorization. In contrast to 2 years of flat funding, in MAP–21 we provided an administration with many years’ worth of work on regulation. So we 

haven’t begun yet to understand the implications, indeed, to even 

see many of the regulations, and I think that is to be expected, 

given how substantial were the policy changes in MAP–21. 

3 

Mr. Chairman, I am summarizing my testimony, and ask that 

my full testimony—my full opening statement, rather, be put in the 

record. 

Gone are the days, I believe, when we can have 3-month extensions or even 2-year bills. Secretary Foxx has been clear. Warning 

is out there that we run out of money, even for this flat 2-year bill, 

in August. And he will begin rationing for what funds are left for 

the States some time this summer. 

Mr. Chairman, I think that spells out c-r-i-s-i-s. I don’t see how 

that could be more clear, not even enough money to last throughout this authorization period. If we do not address this crisis now— 

and that is why this hearing is so important, and why so grateful 

for this hearing—if we do not begin right now to focus on what is 

a genuinely difficult problem, in fiscal year 2015, DOT will shut its 

doors to any new projects, and States will not be able to obligate 

any new Federal surface transportation program funds. I wonder 

if that has ever happened in the history of the United States before. I hope it does not happen again. 

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that, were we to act 

that irresponsibly, the impact on highway and transit capital programs and transit operations across the country would be an unmitigated disaster. Our challenges—these challenges make it imperative that we begin working on addressing the trust fund shortfall, and really developing a new template for the trust fund now. 

I am very encouraged that the administration has included an 

outline of a surface transportation proposal for its fiscal year 2015 

budget. I look forward to seeing the details of that proposal when 

it has been submitted to full to Congress. And I am encouraged, because there are ideas that have been forthcoming in both Democratic and Republican proposals and the President’s own outline, 

and I am hopeful that we will use his proposal as a guidepost, as 

we seek a way to find funding for an authorization which I trust 

will be at least 6 years. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for this important hearing. 

And, above all, I am grateful to today’s witnesses. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Today’s panel consists of the Honorable 

Peter M. Rogoff, Acting Under Secretary for Policy, Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation; Mr. Greg Nadeau, 

Deputy Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration; 

Therese McMillan, Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit 

Administration; the Honorable Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; and the Honorable David 

Friedman, Acting Administrator of the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration. 

Welcome to all of you. Your full statements, with unanimous consent, will be made a part of the record, without objection. And we 

invite you to summarize them in approximately 15 minutes, beginning with Mr. Rogoff. 

4 

TESTIMONY OF HON. PETER M. ROGOFF, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLICY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; GREGORY G. NADEAU, 

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; THERESE W. MCMILLAN, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION; HON. ANNE S. FERRO, 

ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; AND HON. DAVID FRIEDMAN, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Norton, members of the subcommittee, thanks for inviting me here 

today to report on our progress in carrying out the MAP–21 law, 

and to discuss our 2015 budget. I am joined here this morning by 

the modal Administrators who will testify principally about MAP– 

21 implementation. I will testify principally about the administration’s budget and our comprehensive reauthorization plan. 

Since the beginning of the Obama administration, the USDOT 

has worked extensively to rebuild our Nation’s infrastructure, put 

Americans back to work, and improve efficiency in our processes. 

Given the deteriorating condition of our Nation’s roadways, railways, and transit systems, continued robust Federal investment is 

essential, and our underlying programs supporting our investments 

require an overhaul. 

The Highway Trust Fund will face insolvency by as soon as this 

summer. Secretary Foxx and the entire USDOT team have been 

sounding the alarm on this concern for some months now. The 

Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund is likely to dip below 

the critical $4 billion funding level as soon as July, and the Transit 

Account will fall below $1 billion some time in August. Absent action by Congress to replenish the trust fund, USDOT will be required to implement cash management measures to preserve a 

positive balance in the trust fund and head off insolvency. 

If the trust fund were to become insolvent, hundreds of thousands of jobs across the Nation could be at risk, and our ability to 

address the many road, rail, and transit needs in every State will 

be severely impeded. We look forward to partnering with you to 

avoid a catastrophic impact to transportation construction activity 

in the middle of this summer’s construction season. 

When it comes to our investment policies, MAP–21 started us in 

the right direction. It repositioned programs, and it reformed critical aspects of the way our infrastructure is built, the way roads 

and bridges are maintained, and the way projects are delivered. We 

believe, however, that more needs to be done. Going forward, the 

administration will be proposing further reforms through a $302 

billion, 4-year transportation reauthorization plan that provides 

substantially increased and stable funding for our Nation’s highways, bridges, transit, and rail systems. The administration’s plan 

is fully paid for through existing revenue, and $150 billion in transition revenue from pro-growth business tax reform. 

Mr. Chairman, you stated in your opening statement that the 

record of the duration that projects take from beginning to end is 

unacceptable, and the administration agrees. Our reauthorization 

plan will deliver major projects more efficiently by advancing poliVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Sep 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\3-12-1~1\87049.TXT JEAN
5 

cies to facilitate the President’s stated goal of reducing the permitting and approval time for major infrastructure projects in half, all 

while creating incentives for better outcomes for communities and 

the environment. 

Our plan will increase capacity to move people and freight, which 

is absolutely critical, when you consider that, by the year 2050, our 

country will experience an increase of over 100 million residents. 

This effort includes a new $10 billion initiative over 4 years, dedicated solely to improving critical freight connections. The program 

will encourage improved State and regional planning around critical freight corridors. It will also give shippers and truck and rail 

industry representatives a meaningful role in crafting investment 

decisions in partnership with State and local governments. 

The plan will also ensure that we focus on fixing it first, improving the safety and performance of our existing infrastructure. This 

effort includes a new program aimed at repairing structurally deficient Interstate Highway System bridges, improving safety on rural 

roads, and supporting a state of good repair on the National Highway System. 

Our plan will also better connect Americans in both urban and 

rural communities by investing in transportation projects that better serve centers of employment, education, and essential services. 

This effort includes more than $2 billion over 4 years for a new 

rapid-growth area transit program that will link people to jobs and 

educational opportunities in fast-growing areas across the country. 

And the plan will create more resilient communities by promoting 

smarter transportation planning to reduce fuel use, conserve energy, and build for the challenges of the future. 

In the coming weeks, the administration will formally transmit 

a legislative proposal to Congress to provide the programmatic details behind each one of these plans. And when the bill is transmitted, Mr. Chairman, we sincerely hope that the committee will 

invite the Department back to discuss them in full. 

We look forward to working closely with this subcommittee as we 

build on the reforms contained in MAP–21 to bring infrastructure 

improvements to Americans in a faster, better, and smarter way. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I look forward to answering your questions, when all the testimony is complete. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Nadeau. 

Mr. NADEAU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Norton, members of the subcommittee, for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request, and the Federal Highway Administration’s continued 

progress in implementing MAP–21. 

MAP–21 made changes aimed at improving safety, rebuilding 

highways and bridges, expanding TIFIA credit assistance for major 

infrastructure projects, focusing on freight policy, accelerating 

project delivery, and moving toward a more performance-based 

driven system. Building on the reforms in MAP–21, President 

Obama recently proposed a budget for the next fiscal year and laid 

out his vision for a 4-year surface transportation authorization that 

will strengthen these and other priorities even further. 

6 

MAP–21’s infusion of performance-based planning and programming into State and MPO investment decisionmaking will go a long 

way to help preserve and improve our surface transportation assets. We should seek to build on these efforts in the next authorization. I am pleased to report that yesterday the Federal Highway 

Administration published the first of our rulemakings seeking public comment on the safety-related performance measures. 

The President’s plan will also allow us to build on the successes 

in MAP–21 in accelerating project delivery by implementing new 

policies and procedures that will move USDOT and our Federal 

partners toward fulfilling the President’s stated goal of reducing 

the permitting and approval time for major infrastructure projects 

by half. This has long been a priority area for the Federal Highway 

Administration, and we will continue to pursue our Every Day 

Counts, or EDC, as we know it, initiatives to demonstrate real savings of time and cost around the country, resulting directly from 

the deployment of technological and procedural innovation. Importantly, EDC is a partnership with State and local agencies and the 

private sector: important because they deliver the projects. 

Many of our successes in shortening project delivery and increased awareness of the innovations promoted under EDC are recognized throughout MAP–21. For example, Congress authorized for 

use on federally funded highway projects the once-experimental 

Construction Manager/General Contractor project delivery method 

that has been promoted under EDC. Other examples are included 

in my written testimony. 

Moving beyond MAP–21, we believe that the next authorization 

must be comprehensive and should continue the focus on safety, 

freight, streamlined project delivery, and enhanced performance 

management, while increasing our investment in multimodal 

freight projects, and doing more to connect communities to centers 

of employment, education, and service. 

The President’s 2015 budget proposes a 4-year authorization and 

requests $48.6 billion for the Federal Highway Administration in 

fiscal year 2015 to maintain and improve the safety, condition, and 

performance of our national highway infrastructure and enable the 

Federal Highway Administration to provide effective stewardship 

and oversight of highway programs and funding. The President’s 

budget not only fills the looming shortfall in the Highway Account 

of the Highway Trust Fund for the next 4 years, it provides for sizable growth in highway investment—a boost of approximately 20 

percent to help us address the many critical needs we have across 

the national highway network. 

Thank you again for the invitation to appear before you today, 

and I look forward to continued work with you and your staff as 

we build on the reforms in MAP–21 and move toward a new surface transportation authorization. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Ms. McMillan. 

Ms. MCMILLAN. Chairman Petri and members of the committee, 

thank you for inviting me to discuss the Federal Transit Administration’s progress implementing MAP–21, and the administration’s 

priorities for next year’s budget and the upcoming reauthorization. 

7 

MAP–21 codifies some of President Obama’s highest priorities for 

strengthening the Nation’s public transportation systems at a time 

when transit ridership is at its highest level since 1956, with almost 10.7 billion trips taken in 2013, according to APTA’s latest 

figures. I am proud of the progress we have made on the issues 

that are important to our riders and to us, particularly given the 

challenge of the 2-year timeframe in addressing its provisions. For example, at a time when our Nation faces a serious $86 billion transportation infrastructure deficit for transit, MAP–21 creates a needs-based state-of-good-repair formula program for fixed 

guideways. We are in the process of establishing a national transit 

asset management system to ensure that all of our grantees adopt 

a strategic and individual approach for managing their capital, and 

will hold them accountable for leveraging all available resources to 

bring their systems into a state of good repair. 

We are reviewing comments on our landmark advanced notice of 

proposed rulemaking issued last fall, emphasizing the need for 

asset management and safety to go hand in hand. We are also 

working closely with State safety oversight agencies to help get 

them on course to put a stronger and more consistent safety oversight regime in place. I assure you we remain sensitive to concerns 

about how we implement our new authority in the safety arena. 

This is not a one-size-fits-all approach. 

We have also made strides under MAP–21 to help our grant programs work better and make better use of taxpayer dollars, issuing 

new regulations and guidance to accelerate project delivery, 

streamline the NEPA process, and help our communities build the 

transit systems they need more quickly and efficiently. 

MAP–21 has set us on a right path, but there is much more to 

be done. As President Obama said recently, ‘‘In today’s global economy, first-class jobs gravitate to first-class infrastructure.’’ That is 

why the President is seeking a 63-percent increase in FTA’s budget 

for next year over this year’s enacted level. That would provide us 

an additional $6.8 billion to strengthen transit safety oversight, 

build our Nation’s bus and rail transit infrastructure into a state 

of good repair, and provide new and expanded transit systems in 

many communities. 

Our request includes $2.5 billion to support construction of major 

capital rail and bus projects around the Nation, and bring relief to 

existing transit corridors that are at or near capacity. These 

projects create thousands of good jobs, and give communities the 

transportation choices to access jobs, education, health care, and 

other vital services. 

I would also highlight we are seeking nearly $14 billion in formula funds to help our grantees get the job done right, including 

$5.1 billion in increases above our currently funding level to support strategic fix-it-first investments, bring our Nation’s rail transit 

infrastructure into a state of good repair, and replace aging buses 

that have, literally, logged in millions of miles. 

We also recognize how important transit has become in rural 

communities and on our tribal lands, where there are now more 

than 1,400 operators providing more than 140 million trips, annually. We are seeking over $600 million to support that demand in 

communities. 

8 

Finally, I would note we are seeking $60 million for research and 

training activities, including significant funds to support workers 

looking to find jobs in the transportation sector. All of this is an 

integral part of the President’s robust 4-year, $302 billion reauthorization package, and that will support the Nation’s surface transportation systems, including public transit. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I am happy to 

answer any questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Administrator Ferro. 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Norton, and members of the subcommittee. Appreciate the opportunity 

to explain FMCSA’s—the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s—implementation of MAP–21 requirements, as well as some 

highlights on our fiscal year 2015 budget. 

DOT’s top priority is safety. And, for FMCSA, it was very exciting to see MAP–21 support the safety framework in which FMCSA 

has been driving forward to make safety gains in further reducing 

crashes involving commercial motor vehicles on our highways. That 

framework that really is outlined very well in MAP–21 consists of 

raising the bar to safety to come into this industry; ensuring once 

you are operating in the industry, that you are maintaining high 

safety standards to stay there; and using all the tools at our disposal to get the high-risk companies and drivers and service providers off the road to either get better or get out of the business. 

And so, when it comes to MAP–21, MAP–21 really advanced 

some key priorities in that regard. To date, we have already implemented more than half of the new rulemaking requirements that 

MAP–21 incorporated, which number almost up to 40, and, cutting 

right to the chase, right out of the box, we implemented new rules 

that put in place some exemptions for certain types of agricultural 

operators and agricultural vehicles, exemptions from some of the 

core safety requirements, and we put in place new mandates on financial security for brokers and freight forwarders. 

I am very excited to say that a month ago we issued and published a notice of proposed rulemaking for the first-ever drug and 

alcohol clearinghouse. And just yesterday, I got the word from 

OMB that they have completed their review of a high-priority rule 

known as Electronic Logging Devices, and we will be publishing 

that supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in no time, imminently. 

MAP–21 also included some new enforcement authorities to help 

us with our crackdown on high-risk motorcoach companies. We 

have been very aggressive and—concerning motorcoach companies, 

and incorporated those new tools and enhanced training that we 

have already deployed across at least half of our investigators as 

of this date, and will complete training before the end of this year, 

as they proceed to focus on the highest risk bus and truck companies. 

And then, lastly, on MAP–21, we have underway both listening 

sessions, as well as building the framework for rules that will require testing prior to getting the authority for any new applicant 

for interstate operating authority—any new applicant, as in a company: bus, truck, motorcoach, household goods, hazmat. And so 

9 

that new entrant testing, part of MAP–21, we have held several listening sessions on. We have a few more to go. And that will help 

us set the framework for the rule. And we are actively working on 

strategies to move forward with a rulemaking on entry-level driver 

training for commercial drivers. 

With regard to the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request of 

$669 million for FMCSA, not quite half of—about $315 million will 

support FMCSA’s safety enforcement work, and allow us to implement some of the other operating requirements of MAP–21 that accelerates our review of new entrants into the industry. The other 

half, a little more than half, will go to States in the form of grants, 

again, to further enhance motor carrier safety enforcement through 

roadside inspections. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks, and thank you, 

again, for the opportunity to talk about those key initiatives. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Friedman. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Norton and all the members of the subcommittee. I truly appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. And I would also 

like to thank each and every one of you on this committee for your 

efforts on MAP–21. I look forward to working with you to strengthen highway safety through a comprehensive, 4-year reauthorization 

of our surface transportation programs, as the President has proposed. 

Now, NHTSA takes tremendous pride in our nearly five-decadelong record of protecting Americans by partnering with the States 

and—to enforce strong highway safety laws, and by working to 

make vehicles safer. Since 1970, highway fatalities have declined 

by 36 percent, and they have fallen by 22 percent in just the last 

decade. But we also have to face the reality of where the numbers 

are today. There are more than 30,000 fatalities on America’s roadways each year. We must continue to look for—at new and innovative ways to save lives, while continuing to support education and 

enforcement efforts that we know deliver results. 

The administration does continue, as Administrator Ferro noted, 

to place safety at the forefront of all that the Department does. 

And the President’s budget request continues our efforts to save 

lives, reduce injuries, and lower the cost of crashes. States are a 

vital partner in these efforts. And that is why, as part of the budget, we are requesting $577 million for highway traffic safety grants. 

Implementing MAP–21 has been a major priority for NHTSA. The 

agency issued an interim final rule to expedite guidance to the 

States as quickly as possible. We want to get the money out and 

get it doing the good work that it is intended to do, as fast as possible. So, we continue to work with States to help them access 

those resources under MAP–21, and to put them to good use. 

Now I would like to briefly discuss a few of our priorities, as they 

are related to MAP–21. First of all, seatbelts. Seatbelts remain one 

of the single most effective ways to reduce deaths and injuries. And 

seatbelt usage is on the rise in our Nation. And that is great news. 

But I do need to emphasize that seatbelt use continues to be higher 

in States with primary belt laws. 

10 

We are also working to address the issue of the epidemic of 

drunk driving, where more than 10,000 Americans lose their lives 

in completely avoidable crashes. We must make more progress on 

this critical issue. 

NHTSA is also very concerned about the upper trends in pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities. As Americans spend more and more 

time walking and cycling, we must bring new resources and proven 

strategies to bear to better protect them. We are working with the 

States, for example, to develop new performance metrics on bicycles, so that we can be targeting the resources where they need to 

go to affect and improve the issue of bicycle fatalities. Bicycle and 

pedestrian fatalities are a priority of Secretary Foxx, so you can expect to see our efforts in these areas continue to grow. 

Now, we have also worked very hard to help older Americans 

maintain their mobility safely. Older drivers are safer drivers, on 

average. But they are more likely to suffer serious injuries if involved in a crash. And so, it is important that we continue to look 

for ways to mitigate those risks. 

Now, in addition to NHTSA’s traditional enforcement efforts, we 

are also looking to vehicle technologies for ways to save lives. The 

President’s budget request supports NHTSA’s plan to expand the 

agency’s focus on technology. Advanced safety technologies such as 

vehicle-to-vehicle communications and automated vehicles can help 

drivers avoid crashes in the first place. Advances in technology are 

also providing new comforts and amenities for drivers and passengers. Our goal at NHTSA is for drivers and passengers to usher 

in and be able to access new technologies, while filtering out new 

distractions. We will continue those efforts to work with the industry and to work to minimize these distractions. 

Now, in all of our work, President Obama and Secretary Foxx 

have emphasized the need to be efficient with limited budgetary resources. To that end, NHTSA has strengthened its budgetary oversight to ensure that taxpayer resources are effectively managed 

and appropriately invested to save lives. 

Now, to conclude, and, frankly, with apologies to my DOT colleagues, I want to close by noting that I don’t think that you will 

ever find a workforce more passionately invested in its mission to 

save lives than you will find at NHTSA. NHTSA’s commitment to 

protecting the American people never wavers. 

Thank you again, members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, for 

the opportunity to testify, and I am happy to take any questions 

you may have. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all for your summaries of 

your—and your complete statements will be made a part of the 

record. 

I have a couple of questions. Mr. Friedman, one thing that is 

worth mentioning is that, obviously, safety is number one, and we 

want to be vigilant and keep making improvement, but there has 

been quite a success story there, in the sense that the number of 

fatalities on the Nation’s highways has been tending downward for 

a number of years now. And it used to be in the 40,000 to 50,000 

range, and it is now in the 30,000 to 20,000 range. 

And I think the percentage of accidents that are due to human 

mistakes or peccadillos of one sort or another, as opposed to meVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Sep 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\3-12-1~1\87049.TXT JEAN
11 

chanical failures, as—there has been a significant improvement in 

the—by the auto industry and trucking industry in trying to build 

more safety into vehicles, and give people more of a margin for 

error. And that is continuing with autonomous vehicle technology 

that is rolling out, and the like, and it is—we are, in Government, 

doing something. But in the private sector, they are actually doing 

quite a lot that has been very effective, as well. 

And it is worth acknowledging, that it is saving lives. And we 

should focus on success, as well as failures, I think, because that— 

people like to know that they are getting somewhere, and not just 

being frustrated. 

But my question is that NHTSA funded the National Roadside 

Survey of Alcohol and Drugged Drivers in 2013, and we have been 

hearing from citizens who encountered this survey while driving, 

and who believe they were pulled over by law enforcement, subjected to breath saliva and blood samples. And since the survey 

hires law enforcement officers to direct traffic—and I guess they 

are often in their uniforms—it could appear to a motorist that they 

were entering into a DUI checkpoint or some sort of involuntary 

Government search regime. 

And I am certainly supportive of research on drunk and drugged 

driving, but I am concerned that motorists who encounter these 

surveys are not properly informed that the survey is voluntary. 

And we are increasingly living in a society where people are worrying about Big Brother and Government overstepping its bounds 

in a number of different areas, and I think we need to be sensitive 

to that. 

So, my question is, how is NHTSA addressing these concerns? 

And what procedures does NHTSA require in order to inform the 

motorists that the survey is voluntary? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, 

quickly, relative to your first point, we look at improving safety as 

a partnership. It is a partnership with the States, it is a partnership with Congress, and it is a partnership with industry. We need 

everyone moving forward, and we have made tremendous progress 

in reducing highway fatalities. Our goal is to make a lot more. 

In regards to the roadside survey, it has definitely gotten a lot 

of attention. This is a very important program. It is a voluntary 

program. When drivers approach these sites, the very first thing 

that they see is a very large orange sign with the words ‘‘Paid Voluntary Survey.’’ That is their very first indication that this is a voluntary survey. 

In many cases, they can be waved into the survey site by police 

officers. Those police officers are there because our priority is safety. The job of those police officers is to ensure the safety of the participants, to ensure the safety of the researchers, because while we 

are gathering this data we need to make sure that everyone is safe. 

And when the driver enters the site, they are told very clearly, in 

a very strict protocol by the researchers, that this is voluntary. 

They are given the opportunity to drive away. In fact, when drivers 

first see this orange sign, about a quarter of them drive through. 

It is also important to note this is a voluntary survey. It collects 

anonymous data, purely targeted at alcohol and drug use among 

drivers. I believe we have taken every effort to make sure that that 

12 

is clear. In fact, we are taking additional efforts. For example, removing the initial use of an air sampler to test the level of alcohol 

on people’s breath to ensure that we get their consent first, before 

gathering any data. 

Mr. PETRI. Well, the next time you do one of these, or next couple 

times, I don’t know if you or some in your Department could quietly and anonymously just drive down the road and see if all these 

procedures work, and go through the experience without letting— 

not an official inspection, but—because sometimes you put things 

on paper, but in reality people follow the path of least resistance, 

and it is—you know, the public is—clearly, we are hearing from 

them. They are concerned about this. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. And I understand those concerns. And we have 

continued to take those concerns very seriously. And we have sent 

staff out to these sites, and we regularly audit to make sure that 

all these policies and procedures are moving forward. We make 

sure to get the cooperation of the States, as we move forward, as 

well as local law enforcement, to ensure that everyone is informed, 

and safety is protected in these voluntary and anonymous surveys. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. I have one other quick question. Ms. Ferro, some of 

my constituents have expressed their frustration with Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s safety measurement system. 

Roadside inspection violation data was erroneously issued by an 

enforcement officer, was later challenged in court, and the violation 

was dismissed. My constituent submitted an appeal of the dismissed violation through the DataQ’s System, but the officer that 

issued the violation declined to repeal the violation for the SMS. 

These scores are having real-world impacts on the carriers’ ability to find business, and erroneous violations could put a carrier 

out of business. So if it is not a valid administration—a violation, 

why is it not being removed? And how is this issue being addressed? 

Ms. FERRO. Mr. Chairman, at the heart of that issue has been 

a question about fairness. And so, we have examined—we have 

spoken with a lot of companies and drivers about the issue. We 

have heard a lot of recommendations. 

And so, late last year, we put together an issue—published a notice for comment on a new approach to that very issue. And that 

new approach would establish, in the case where a State charge is 

issued at the same time as a Federal violation on a safety issue in 

a roadside inspection, if that State charge is dismissed, the violation points would also be removed from that SMS system. If the 

violation—if the State charge is downgraded, we would make sure 

the record is noted that that charge has been downgraded. 

And so, we are wrapping up—we received a lot of comments. It 

closed in January, we are wrapping that up, and we expect to proceed, we think, with a better approach that actually will likely address the concern that you raised. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. DeFazio? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To Mr. Rogoff, you mentioned in your testimony $4 billion funding level as soon as 

July for the Highway Account, and one for August, and then you 

talked about implementing procedures to preserve solvency. How 

13 

soon do you think will you start adjusting downward, paring back, 

delaying? I am not sure how you are going to do it, reimbursements 

to States and local agencies. And what form do you think it will 

take? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, Mr. DeFazio, I cited those specific thresholds, 

$4 billion for the Highway Account, and $1 billion as the Transit 

Account is sort of when our first alarm goes off. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So you are going to go up to that point? 

Mr. ROGOFF. We will. But, you know, we know what—when it is 

coming with increasing certainty with each passing month, as we 

see the Treasury reports of receipts versus expenditures. 

I think, importantly, with the re-estimate that comes with the 

submission of the budget, frankly, the trajectory for the Highway 

Account has actually worsened, and—which has us very concerned 

about this coming summer. 

The procedures that we use are effectively delaying reimbursement. Both of these programs work on a reimbursable basis. And 

we normally reimburse a grantee anywhere from within a matter 

of hours to, generally, no more than a day-and-a-half. That allows 

them to not have to float cash, if you will, to the Federal Government. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sure. So what are we looking at? 

Mr. ROGOFF. And so, certainly—but our biggest concern is, absent action to rectify this problem, the States and the transit agencies are going to start revisiting their investment decisions a lot 

sooner than that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. ROGOFF. So, while we will, you know, start implementing 

cash management procedures as we trickle down below $4 billion 

and below $1 billion, we are concerned that we will see a slowdown before that that will impact employment. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. I believe Kansas has already announced— 

at least one State—and I have got a letter from Oregon Department of Transportation. They are looking more at the next fiscal 

year. But I would assume that many States will follow, and we 

could see a slow-down. 

The—I am just curious. The administration has put forward a 

proposal with illusory corporate tax reform, which won’t happen 

this year. We are going to pay for the trust fund. Do you have a 

backup plan? Because I have personally presented to the President, 

presented to your predecessor, presented to the current Secretary— 

I mean not your predecessor, to Ray LaHood, current Secretary, a 

simple idea. Now, as I drove to work on Friday, and I came home, 

gas had gone up a nickel a gallon. Was I outraged? Did I scream 

and yell? Did I pound? No, I expect it. OK? 

Well, what if 1.4 cents of that had gone to rebuild our infrastructure? Simple proposal. Index the current user fee gas tax to construction cost inflation, fleet fuel economy. We have run the numbers, your department ran the numbers. It is about 1.4, 1.7 cents 

a gallon per year. I don’t think anybody is going to get unelected 

because of that, even though there is a lot of tax aversion around 

here. And use that projected cash flow for bonding to backfill the 

trust fund. 

14 

We have an unprecedented problem. We could raise the tax a 

dime today. You would still have this cash flow problem, because 

it is the trust fund balance that we are worried about. 

I mean is the administration looking at—will they consider a realistic backup plan like mine, which I believe could work, and is, 

you know, based in history, which is it is a user fee-funded program? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Mr. DeFazio, the administration has made clear— 

the President, the Secretary, on down—that we are open-minded to 

any alternatives that people want to put on the table that help 

solve— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I know, but I put it on the table now for 4 years. 

You first—you know, you killed my reauthorization—not you, but 

the administration, because they were scared to death of revenues 

of any sort. Now they have got an illusory, fake—you know, I 

mean, it is great. Yes, corporate tax reform is going to pay for everything in America. It is not going to happen. Not going to happen—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. I am not going to buy into the notion that they are 

illusory. I mean we—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. No, that is—Mr. Rogoff, that is fine. But my 

point is this is a real proposal. It is real. It is based in history. It 

is only 1.4, 1.7 cents a gallon, you know? I can go to the most conservative parts of my district, tell people what I am going to build 

with this, who I am going to put to work, and say, you know, ‘‘Will 

you support that?’’ and the answer is people are not going to be 

outraged, except for a few idiots. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Sir, we have made very clear—what the Secretary 

has said repeatedly in the last few weeks in discussions with Members is that right now we have a proposal, Mr. Camp has a proposal, there are other proposals out there—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. ROGOFF [continuing]. Including yours, including—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. That is good, thank you. 

Quick question, Ms. Ferro. I just want to know. You were conducting an ongoing study, as I understand it, of detention time 

issues and what the impact is on drivers and et cetera. Where are 

we at on that? 

Ms. FERRO. The agency is continuing with the second phase of 

the detention study, so that we can analyze the final link between 

detention time and safety outcomes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Ms. FERRO. Expect those to be done in 2015. I am very eager to 

see it done. Detention time is really impactful on drivers, on driver 

safety, and, frankly, wastes almost $4 billion in industry efficiency. 

So, thank you for the question. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Crawford? 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009, 

the Department of Transportation undertook a major effort to publicize the status and impact of these funds. It is my understanding 

both the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Highway 

Administration included substantial information, including someVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Sep 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\3-12-1~1\87049.TXT JEAN
15 

times weekly State-specific reports on their Web sites to detail for 

the public the progress in utilizing these funds. 

There is a provision in MAP–21, section 1503, entitled, ‘‘Transparency and Accountability,’’ that basically directs the Department 

of Transportation to do for the core highway and public transportation program investments what it did for the Recovery Act highway and transit funds. We have a lot of people in our country who 

question the value of Federal transportation investment. 

It seems to me it would be a good idea to—place to start in answering this question is showing them how each State benefits 

from these funds. It also seems that you thought this was a pretty 

good idea for a strategy for Recovery Act funds. 

So, my question, then, for Mr. Rogoff and Mr. Nadeau, is there 

a substantive reason why the Department has not been providing 

the American people with the specifics of how core highway and 

transit program funds are used in a timely manner, pursuant to 

this provision of MAP–21, as you did with stimulus funds? 

Mr. NADEAU. Thank you, Congressman. First, I want you to 

know we have been diligently working on this requirement, and expect to post a detailed report on the web, and issue the summary 

report to Congress by late spring. 

Consistent with similar financial reports and requirements of 

MAP–21, the software development was timed to ensure that we 

have 1 year of data available for the report. The scale of this particular report—for example, if you look at the report on ARRA, we 

are talking about a universe of about 12,000 or 13,000 projects. 

This is a universe of in excess of 100,000 projects. So, it simply is 

a larger task, and we are approaching it as aggressively as we possibly can. But that is the expectation of time, with respect to delivering that product. And our commitment is to make it of high quality, so it will be useful certainly to you and Congress and the 

American people. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Mr. Crawford, could I just add to that? We agree 

that greater transparency of where the Federal aid highway funds 

are going by project is very useful. I think, as Members who are 

voting and authorizing these projects, you should know precisely 

where the dollars are going, project by project. We would like to 

know, ourselves. 

Secretary Foxx, as a former mayor, I could tell you is—was curious, as a mayor in North Carolina, where all of North Carolina’s 

dollars were going by project, and couldn’t always get the information he wanted, either. We are standing up that capability. 

You drew a distinction between the Recovery Act and our regular 

program. The Recovery Act had reporting requirements in it, in 

statute, that gave us all of this additional information. That was 

not carried over to the Federal aid program. And we are not necessarily recommending that it be so, because it was really quite an 

administrative burden on the grantees. But, that said, we are 

working to get project-by-project data, and we are as interested in 

it as you are. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate it, and yield 

back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Sires? 

16 

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

today. 

You know, I was very pleased to hear that Chairman Shuster is 

looking forward to addressing the freight mobility as one of his priorities for the bill. And I am happy to see the administration is also 

interested in that. 

I have a concern where—will the proposal attempt to address the 

concerns of large projects that are in different States that are relatively flat-funded formula? Is that going to be addressed? Because 

they tend to fare less than the other projects. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, if I could, the administration’s proposal for a 

freight program—and I think this, like a number of other questions, we are going to be somewhat constrained to provide great details until the bill is submitted. But I could tell you that we are 

specifically looking at multistate corridor projects and those larger 

projects. We are using incentive grants to encourage multistate cooperation, because many of these, when you look at these economic 

centers, especially in your region, they cross State lines very quickly. But also, to have a discretionary component so we could provide 

a sizable-enough grant to buy down some of those major gamechanging freight projects. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. I want to address the issue of safety. In 

my district we are kind of unique. We have these jitney buses, and 

they are a real headache. I mean we had last year an accident 

where one of the jitney buses, the driver was from New York driving in New Jersey, he lost control of the jitney bus, hit a carriage, 

killed the baby that was in the carriage, and everybody was outraged, obviously. Do—you know, obviously. 

I just want to know. What more can the Federal Government do, 

in coordination with the States, to make sure that these jitney 

buses are licensed, that they are inspected, and that they are meeting the law? Because this fellow that was driving—— 

Ms. FERRO. Horrible. 

Mr. SIRES [continuing]. Basically had nothing. They even think 

he was texting as he was driving. So I was just wondering if you 

intend to focus more on that, because it is an increasing problem, 

especially in urban areas where transit companies are pulling their 

buses, and these jitney buses are coming in and filling in the gap. 

Ms. FERRO. Congressman, I—thanks to your concern and your 

focus on this issue, we have had a very good partnership with jurisdictional law enforcement in the areas where the jitneys are operating in New Jersey, up in New York, as well as with our State 

partners in New Jersey and our division office. And they have had 

some very effective sting operations and strike forces that have absolutely raised the attention of the jitney industry. 

We have followed in with additional investigations. But at the 

heart of this, and the heart of your question is, what resources can 

we devote to this issue to really press forward and complete that— 

this kind of safety outcome we are all driving towards? 

Our fiscal year 2015 budget does include a request for 77 positions, the vast majority of which are for the field for safety enforcement work relating to our motorcoach enforcement efforts. We have 

a very focused and targeted motorcoach strike force initiative underway that we launched last year that has absolutely identified 

17 

the highest risk motorcoach companies, and we have taken very aggressive action. But it is something that we put out there as a test 

to figure out what we needed to really get to one level of safety for 

all passengers, regardless of which bus they choose to use. 

And so, the gap analysis on that initiative demonstrates the need 

for additional resources that are incorporated in our 2015 budget. 

But we will keep pressing forward on a partnership that I outlined 

in the initial part of my response. 

Mr. SIRES. Are the State of New York and New Jersey cooperating fully with your efforts? 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, we have had a very good cooperation, in fact, 

between New York and New Jersey on our motorcoach work, the 

whole I–95 corridor. So the answer is yes. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Barletta? 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Specifically, my question relates to triple-trailer trucks. Triples can be as long as 110 

feet, and weigh as much as more than 120,000 pounds. On the 

other hand, a car is roughly 16 feet long, and weighs less than 

4,000 pounds. And, personally, these triples scare me. And most 

drivers don’t want to share the roads with them. 

In 2000, a USDOT study found that multitrailer trucks have an 

11 percent higher fatal crash rate than single-trailer trucks. The 

study said that this finding was significant, in terms of the debate 

about the safety of LCVs. This study was based on national data. 

Mr. Rogoff, are you familiar with this finding? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I am. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Are you including it in your study findings? 

Mr. ROGOFF. As it relates—if you would—if you would be agreeable, Mr. Barletta, I am going to let Mr. Nadeau take the question 

specifically about the weight and size study. 

Mr. NADEAU. Thank you, Peter. Mr. Barletta, there are a number 

of configurations including the study of triples. And that will be 

thoroughly examined, with respect to impact on infrastructure and 

impact—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. So it will be included in the study findings. Will 

you be updating the findings for the current study? 

Mr. NADEAU. Well, what I am referring to is the current study, 

which is, by direction of MAP–21, due to Congress by November of 

this year. And that work is presently going on. A number of groups 

that we have assembled are analyzing various elements of—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. So it will be including the information from the 

2000 study and updating current—— 

Mr. NADEAU. The study is completely comprehensive, and does 

focus in large part on current literature, historical literature, and 

applied research. So—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. Good. 

Mr. NADEAU [continuing]. Across the board, sir. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Good. Thank you. Administrator Ferro, a recent 

GAO study found significant flaws in CSA, and the program continues to label safe carriers as unsafe within the trucking marketplace. Now, your budget requests millions to fix the system’s algorithms. Since your budget priorities seem to suggest that you recognize the problems associated with CSA, why isn’t FMCSA doing the 

18 

right thing and pulling those scores off the public Web site until 

CSA is fixed? 

Ms. FERRO. Congressman, thank you for that question. The CSA 

program, Compliance, Safety, Accountability program, is at the 

core of our enforcement platform, and it really builds on work we 

did a decade ago that we used to call SafeStat. Again, it used certain inspection and investigation data to identify the highest risk 

companies. CSA really built upon that to utilize our full suite of inspection data, investigation data, to help not just FMCSA prioritize 

the highest risk companies—and the program does—but also help 

companies themselves identify more quickly where they may have 

a safety issue and address it, so that they can continue operating 

and put safety as a key part of their bottom line. 

With regard to program critiques, program analysis from GAO, 

you know, at the heart of GAO’s analysis they identify some areas 

of improvement that we are committed to do, as I have been from 

the moment we rolled this program out in 2010. It has got to be 

a continuous improvement effort. We have got to make full use of 

our data. And we absolutely owe it to the public to help prevent 

crashes, not wait for them to occur and then go ahead and look at 

the company. The GAO study, one of their core recommendations 

is to do just what I said: wait until the crash occurs and, by the 

way, just look at the larger companies. 

Now, we have 500,000 companies, the vast majority of which are 

10 trucks or fewer. So it is very important that we incorporate all 

the safety data into our analysis and use that analysis to anticipate 

a crash, get to that company ahead of time with an intervention, 

and help them avoid that crash and that fatality. But rest assured, 

we are committed to incorporate improvements that are recommended through the kinds of analysis that you referenced. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Ms. Hahn? 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to address my 

question to Mr. Nadeau. So, as you probably know, Los Angeles 

puts a lot of our own money into funding transportation projects. 

Most recently in 2008, voters of L.A. County approved Measure R, 

which was a half-cent sales tax that will raise $40 billion over the 

next 30 years for road and transit projects. 

So, we came up with the concept of America Fast Forward. Instead of waiting 30 years using tax revenue to build these projects, 

we thought it was a smarter idea to have the Federal Government 

kind of frontload those projects, with the guaranteed return of the 

revenue over 30 years. Part of America Fast Forward was advancing the expansion of TIFIA program, which was successfully adopted into MAP–21. 

This expansion was seen as having the potential to speed up the 

construction of a number of large, critical programs that weren’t 

approved under the previous TIFIA program, which had smaller 

lending authority. States and localities all across this country are 

depending on the favorable term rates of TIFIA to revolutionize the 

way they finance infrastructure projects. 

Fortunately, we heard testimony during this subcommittee’s last 

roundtable discussion that mentioned, despite the substantial increase in loan authority, DOT’s approval of TIFIA loans was still 

19 

incredibly slow, and the pace of approval for TIFIA projects was no 

faster than it was before this expansion. So, particularly in L.A. 

County, we are concerned on doing a better job of approving these. 

Give you a shout out that we were informed that DOT—that 

TIFIA sent a letter to the Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement 

project in Long Beach, inviting them to apply for a TIFIA loan, 

which could provide up to $300 million for the project. But want 

to know what you are doing to increase the rate at which your office approves these loans. That is what is going to be critical as we 

move forward to invest in our country’s infrastructure. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Congresswoman, Hahn, if it is OK, I am going to 

take that question. 

Ms. HAHN. OK. 

Mr. ROGOFF. We have always been very impressed, and hold out, 

obviously, Measure R as sort of a national model on how—when 

the local voters step up and decide to invest in themselves, that the 

Federal Government should both applaud and help that, and magnify that investment. 

I believe we have actually been rather successful in the following 

respect in making the TIFIA loans happen for L.A. in a timely 

manner, in that we have been able to, for the first time, get the 

Federal Transit Administration and the TIFIA program sort of 

working hand-in-glove, so when we were ready to sign a full-funding grant agreement for the regional connector, the TIFIA loan was 

ready to go. When we were ready to sign a full-funding grant 

agreement for the West Side Subway, the TIFIA grant is ready to 

go. 

Now, I think it is important to remember. We are working—and 

I know our chief financial officer, Sylvia Garcia, is working on this. 

But it is also important to remember that TIFIA loans are not like 

pack-n-play, one size, they are all identical. In fact, every one of 

them—I believe there is probably no two deals that are identical. 

Each borrower has a different creditworthiness profile. Each loan 

has to be negotiated separately. Maybe we will get to a point where 

we could do these on a kind of more formatted basis. 

But in order to protect the taxpayer interest, we do need to make 

sure—now, we will do well. We are getting, you know—— 

Ms. HAHN. You are saying—the testimony that we heard last 

roundtable that—the approval was still incredibly slow, and it has 

really been no faster than—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, we share the—— 

Ms. HAHN. Yes. 

Mr. ROGOFF. We share the frustration—— 

Ms. HAHN. So I guess my question is, what are you doing to—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. We are reviewing—— 

Ms. HAHN [continuing]. Even so that we are—— 

Mr. ROGOFF [continuing]. The processes. We are looking at the 

creditworthiness reviews. We are looking at—again, but one of the 

challenges we have, we want to make things go more quickly, also. 

We are asking for $4 billion over 4 years for TIFIA, so we greatly 

applaud the expansion of the program that began under—— 

Ms. HAHN. So what are you doing to increase the rate—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. We are specifically looking at the process by which 

we put each borrower through, in terms of the multiple steps, and 

20 

seeing if that can be streamlined. Our challenge comes when each 

borrower wants a slightly different deal, because then we need to 

go and do our due diligence on their payback ability for that deal. 

Now, we—the Secretary was just in New York, talking to people 

interested in public-private partnerships. We are as critically interested as the committee in sort of getting more of that private 

money to bear on infrastructure projects. But these are complicated 

transactions. I cannot tell you that we can execute them as rapidly 

as we do a grant. 

Ms. HAHN. Well, it is critical, obviously. It is critical for—and not 

just L.A. County region, but certainly across this country. Folks are 

really depending on this loan process to speed up the investment 

in infrastructure. And we know that is what is going to keep our 

transportation system viable, create jobs, improve the economy. 

Really a lot depends on—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Indeed. And when you look across our budget proposals, we obviously want to make this a more robust element. Not 

only are we making a $4 billion commitment to TIFIA over 4 years, 

the President’s budget also has the re-institution of America Fast 

Forward bonds, and the institution of an infrastructure bank that 

actually expands beyond transportation, but goes to other areas of 

investment, be it school infrastructure investment, power grid, 

other areas that we want. 

So we are on board, I am just trying to explain that we can’t turn 

on a dime and suddenly do a transaction in 2 weeks that used to 

take 2 months. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Rogoff, I will keep you 

going. In section 192 of the 2014 omnibus, Congress made available 

$80 million in unused SAFETEA–LU Maglev dollars to fund several dormant rail grant programs, including passenger rail capital 

projects, railroad safety technology grants that can be used for PTC 

implementation, and high-speed rail corridor planning grants. 

Of the $80 million, as you know, $20 million is set aside for the 

high-speed rail corridor planning grants. Recognizing that the omnibus gives significant discretion to your Department, can you shed 

some light on how the Department specifically intends to allocate 

the remaining $60 million? 

Mr. ROGOFF. It is currently under review, Mr. Davis. I would, 

you know, be happy—I think it would make more sense, if you 

would like, is I could come up to your office with our FRA Administrator, Joe Szabo, and talk through that, because I have been a 

part of some of those discussions, but not all of them. And I know 

a hard decision has not yet been made. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. Any time I can get a chance to meet with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Szabo—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. I will have my office give your office a 

call. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Absolutely. 

Mr. DAVIS. I would like to do that sooner, rather than later. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Happy to do it. 

21 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. Ms. McMillan, you mentioned in your testimony that last year was a very challenging year for the capital 

investment grant program, because of sequestration, but that 2014 

offers a brighter future. Can you tell me what guidance or rules 

that the FTA has, and plans to issue moving forward to carry out 

the changes made in MAP–21 to improve the project’s approval 

process? 

Ms. MCMILLAN. Thank you very much, Congressman, for that 

question. I think this is an area where the Federal Transit Administration has made some great strides. Even prior to MAP–21, we 

had developed new criteria that was far more responsive to communities for the purposes of evaluating projects, including a far more 

understandable cost effectiveness measure, and new criteria on environmental benefits and the like. 

We have also been working very closely to continue our streamlining efforts, including the notion of a warrant, where an agency 

that either has a small amount of funding as part—Federal funding in the larger package, or has demonstrated experience in the 

past can get through our evaluation process more quickly. 

MAP–21, as you know, also reduced the number of steps that are 

required as part of the capital investment grant program, and we 

are working very closely on rulemaking to put that into regulation 

and guidance for our grantees. This is a very popular program, and 

this has been one of our top priorities. 

I would also say that one of the elements that has made the 

process a bit arduous in the past is the requirement to do travel 

modeling. In other words, to estimate ridership of these future 

projects. And we are proud to say that we have developed an offthe-shelf transit forecasting tool that, if you meet certain assumptions and conditions, can really reduce what used to be a 2-year 

process for estimating transit trips maybe down to 2 weeks, if you 

can use this off-the-shelf tool and FTA has been working hand in 

hand with our industry to bring that tool to bear. 

So, there are some examples of what we are doing to get this 

process moving. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Ms. McMillan. And, Mr. Nadeau, following up on what my colleague, Ms. Hahn, mentioned on the 

TIFIA program, I want to give you a chance. And you mentioned 

in your testimony that DOT has closed on eight projects through 

TIFIA. I want to know, because I am a true believer in public 

money to leverage private money and encourage some public-private partnerships. And we both know MAP–21 made some changes 

to improve participation in rural areas. What kind of response have 

you seen, and do you think there are ways to build upon these 

changes and increase rural participation? 

Mr. NADEAU. It is—I think for projects—and rural doesn’t necessarily always mean smaller scale. I think the administration—— 

Mr. DAVIS. I know. Look at my district. 

Mr. NADEAU. Exactly. But it depends entirely on the economics 

of the revenue side. If you are generally looking at debt financing 

as a solution, then, obviously, revenue becomes the key. So that either relies on a revenue stream coming from State or local revenue 

sources or, for example, tolling, where that is economically viable. 

22 

I think the administration’s view is to develop tools that are 

flexible and creative and that, above all, leverage capital from private markets. That theory works both in an urban setting and a 

rural setting, and it depends entirely on the circumstances surrounding the individual project, as Mr. Rogoff pointed out. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I am sorry, I just want to—your State has actually 

stepped out. I mean, in that—at least in the case of—it is a project 

that is before us and under consideration, but in the case of the 

Illiana Parkway, for example, the challenge is who is going to pay 

back the debt. And in that particular case, recognizing that the resources might not be local to pay back the—the State is committing 

themselves to repayment, and that is what facilitates the rural 

project. So we are working on it. 

Mr. DAVIS. Great. Thank you all very much. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the 

hearing today, and to our witnesses. I want to first thank the 

President and the administration for making sure that in its New 

Starts budget proposals, it includes funding for the long soughtafter Purple Line here, in the national capital region, and the Red 

Line in Baltimore. And so, I hope that we are able to come through 

with the resources needed to get those underway, because I think 

it would do a lot to improve things like air and water quality here 

in the metropolitan region, and to free up transit along the beltway, so that we can free up that 95 corridor, so that farmers can 

get their goods to market, and other sorts of things. 

I have been long concerned about rail safety. When I first came 

into Congress, it was just after—just before, rather, we had that 

tragic accident on the Red Line. And so I think a lot has been done 

by the administration and by WMATA and our States to make sure 

that that kind of tragedy doesn’t happen in the future, adding, you 

know, better cars on the line—Mr. Rogoff, you know that—but also, 

Senator Mikulski and I, along with our bipartisan delegation here 

in the metropolitan region, worked to make sure that began to get 

some national Metro safety standards in place, because this accident didn’t stand alone. It had been a whole history across the 

country of similar accidents, and finding out that, despite recommendations for years, we didn’t have, really, national standards. 

Now the question becomes how do you implement those standards? And I know that Deputy Administrator McMillan—that your 

administration has been in the process of implementing those 

standards. You released some grants for, I think, fiscal years 2013 

and 2014 for State safety oversight. But I am curious to know 

whether there were existing State—I cannot say that—State safety 

oversight grants that did not meet the criteria that was set forth 

in MAP–21, and how many of these formula grants went out, 

versus ones that were not. 

And then, lastly, what is the FTA doing to bring these oversight 

agencies into compliance? 

Ms. MCMILLAN. Thank you very much for the question, Congresswoman. And, indeed, as we have said and can’t say enough, 

safety remains the top priority for the DOT, overall. And the establishment of the safety authority for FTA under MAP–21 was a 

much-appreciated and forward-looking acknowledgment of that priVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Sep 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\3-12-1~1\87049.TXT JEAN
23 

ority, and it remains one of the major focus areas for implementation for us. 

With regards to the State safety oversight agencies, again, as a 

launching off point, these are the agencies that actually existed 

prior. What MAP–21 has done is to clarify and strengthen what 

their responsibilities are. The amount of funding that has been 

available to help them do that, as you noted, has—the apportionments have been published for both fiscal year 2013—about $21 

million—and $22 million in 2014. In order to access those funds, 

they need to be able to either have met the criteria that MAP–21 

outlines, or be able to put together a plan to show how they are 

going to get—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. So how many of them met the—of the ones who 

qualify, how many of them met the criteria? 

Ms. MCMILLAN. Two of them have met them currently, California 

and Massachusetts. For the remaining ones, we have been working 

individually with the State safety oversight agencies on a compliance review to say what are the gaps, and to help them put together a plan in order to show how they can meet those. 

Ms. EDWARDS. But they got the grants anyway? 

Ms. MCMILLAN. No. They get the grants at the point they submit 

a plan, and we can see if they have got a path forward. And once 

that plan is reviewed, then the apportionment available to them 

would be made available to them, in terms of a grant. So, it is a 

step-by-step process. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I would like to follow up with you about that. But 

as my time remains, I have one question that—it is at a high order, 

and this goes to Mr. Rogoff. 

There has been a debate within this committee about the relative 

merit of Federal or taxpayers ‘‘subsidizing’’ transit. And I wonder 

if you could tell us about the value of investing in transit, whether 

or not you make money off of it, to the traveling public and to the 

taxpayer. And do we get some of those same concerns that get 

raised for roads that are in the middle of nowhere, but we still 

have them anyway, and are happy to fund them? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, I think our position throughout has been that 

transit investments are absolutely essential. And, frankly, they are 

more essential now than they ever have been in the modern era. 

I think Deputy Administrator McMillan said in her opening statement we have now crept back to a level of transit ridership not experienced since 1956, and it just seems to keep going up. 

What we are most focused on at the Department of Transportation is the 2010 census, and what it tells us: namely, about 100 

million more people, just by 2050. And, even more acutely, those 

people are largely going to reside in areas that have already experienced sizable population growth already. So the fast-growing areas 

are going to grow even faster. And if we are going to avoid a situation where that growth doesn’t choke off that area, and choke off 

the economy in those areas, transit is going to be part of the solution. So is highways, so is ports, so are runways. 

I mean, with 100 million more people coming by 2050, we need 

more of all of it, but transit is certainly part of that solution. 

24 

Mr. HANNA [presiding]. I live in the middle of nowhere, Donna, 

I want you to know that. Thank you. Because I got to get home, 

you know? 

Ms. Ferro, thank you for being—it is good to see you. I want to 

say that, in some ways—and I believe your intentions are good— 

you are hurting the people that—I hear regularly—that you are 

paid to help. 

The—as you are aware, on February 3, 2014, the Government 

Accountability Office issued a report that examined CSA. This is 

about the CSA and the safety measurement system. Among other 

things, the GAO found that FMCSA’s minimum data required to 

receive the CSA SMS scores are not sufficient to produce reliable 

scores, and do not allow for a cross comparison of different carriers. 

GAO pointed out that this led to FMCSA to identify high-risk carriers who were not substantially involved in crashes. Ultimately, 

the GAO recommended that the FMCSA address limitations of the 

CSA program. 

Although the CSA program improves carrier attention to safety 

over its predecessor, we have heard from—I have heard from stakeholders throughout the transportation industry expressing serious 

concerns with the FMCSA’s implementation of CSA programs. Inaccurate SMS scores have caused increases in insurance rates, expensive litigation, losses to business operation. 

For example, according to January 12th report of the American 

Transportation Research Institute, 50 percent of shippers admitted 

they did not enter into new contracts with carriers based on negative scores, largely—and you admitted this earlier—these scores 

are not necessarily accurate. In many cases, they are erroneous. 

Furthermore, you and I have had an ongoing discussion about 

hours of service. Your own report, that was not done before the rule 

was enacted—and nobody is arguing that you had a legal right to 

enact the rule—your report would discuss the FMCSA’s hours-ofservice rules. The field study, which came to Congress 5 months 

late, had only 100 carriers, and showed a mere 12-minute increase—12-minute increase—in average sleep time for drivers who 

now operate under the new rules. 

The American Transportation Research Institute again questions 

your alleging that this is a savings. They believe that it costs almost $400 million—$374 million—a year. So that—my point is that 

these rules and regulations that you talked about earlier, how 

about you are addressing them, these are real day, everyday constant, ongoing, tortuous problems that you are putting these truckers through. And, frankly, the organization acts like they have got 

all the time in the world to correct these problems that are online. 

These drivers, who try hard, are suffering because they get a rating 

that apparently the GAO says could possibly be erroneous—and a 

lot of them we know they are—the comparisons between large 

truckers and small truckers. 

Doesn’t that cause you some concern that, I mean, the very business that you are trying to help, the people whose lives—and I 

know you, you are earnest, you are trying to save lives and this— 

your own study that requires people to sleep at certain hours, that 

tells them when they are tired and when they are not, did not even 

begin to measure the fact that you pushed these drivers into early 

25 

morning hours, when they are much, much, much busier, when the 

traffic is much more congested? 

What I am saying is that you are really—I think you need to 

back up, ma’am, and take a look at some of this stuff, and believe 

the drivers that—who tell you or write you, and Congressman from 

Maine, Michaud, when I wrote you a letter about this. 

So, I have kind of used up my time—therefore, yours—but I am 

assuming—and I didn’t necessarily do that on purpose, but I think 

you get it, but it is—are we so thick that we can’t hear the very 

people whose lives we are impacting? I mean is there nobody you 

believe but some academic who does a study? And why is it so rigidly adhered to, when every day—and I know you do yourself, you 

are from people who do not like these rules, regulations, and you 

know you are hurting people. And the facts are—I mean they are 

not written by people who are not doing it earnestly. But, I am 

sorry, go ahead. Thank you. 

Ms. FERRO. All right, thank you. Thank you, Congressman 

Hanna. 

Look, from the outset, real quickly, I am not hired to help the 

industry. I am hired to ensure the safety of the traveling public, 

and improve the safety of the operations of trucks and buses. That 

is what the agency was created to do. And, as its lead, I am very 

proud to be a part of that—— 

Mr. HANNA. I would say that you are not doing that. Because 

what I hear from the truckers is that you are pushing them into 

hours that are less safe, that, in many cases, you are prescriptive 

about when they are tired, and when they are not. And, therefore, 

they may be less safe. And when drivers can’t get a score that is 

accurate, and they are measured, their cost of doing business and 

who they are hired by are affected. 

And when you take hours-of-service rules that cause truckers to 

buy more trucks, work more—hire more drivers, put more trucks 

on the road, you are not necessarily doing what you say you are 

trying to do. Yet I have no argument that you believe that. 

Ms. FERRO. And so, the second two pieces, on CSA and hours of 

service—I appreciate—I understand what you are saying, and we 

have had these conversations before, and I appreciate the time you 

have taken with me on those conversations, and I assure everybody 

this broken wrist is not from those conversations, you have always 

been very cordial and, I think, very energetic. 

The hours-of-service rule, at its heart, is designed to reduce the 

kind of cumulative fatigue that comes from working up to 80 hours 

a week, week after week after week. And the effects of that fatigue 

impact the ability of drivers to drive safely. We certainly recognize 

there is a financial impact to that rule. There is a much larger and 

offsetting safety benefit to that rule, and health benefit to the drivers. 

Mr. HANNA. We do not agree on that. 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, I—— 

Mr. HANNA. And neither do most drivers that I talk to. And 12 

minutes a week does nothing to mitigate—to support what you just 

said. And that is your study, not anyone else’s. 

Ms. FERRO. And so, on the Compliance Safety Accountability program, you know, look, we have had several key studies recently. 

26 

GSA says—GAO says you are not doing—you are doing too much, 

use less data. Oh, are we—have I lost my time now, completely? 

Mr. HANNA. No, I did that to you, I apologize. 

Ms. FERRO. OK. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you to my friends for indulging me. 

Ms. Frankel? 

Ms. FRANKEL. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank 

the leaders and the leaders in this committee. I think we did a 

really good job on water, and I hope we can do an excellent job on 

the surface transportation bill. And thank you all for being here. 

My question is a little bit parochial, but, actually, I think it will 

serve as an example for other areas of the Nation. Florida—I am 

from south Florida. And we have been notified by FEC about a 

project called All Aboard, which will be a nonstop train that will 

make a few stops, one in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm 

Beach, and Orlando. And I happen to represent the area—a large 

part of that area that the train will go through, and I am getting 

mixed comments from my stakeholders, depending upon where 

they are situated. 

The cities where there is going to be a stop are embracing the 

project, because they believe that there may be an opportunity for 

more economic growth. The cities that the train just passes 

through multiple times a day, of course, are concerned. And let me 

tell you what some of their concerns are, and—because my question 

is going to be whether or not there is a way to address them with 

a Federal response. 

For All Aboard to do the project, they are applying for a RIF loan of over $1 billion. Here is what my cities are asking. They are 

going to need funding for a traffic signalization, for quiet zone infrastructure, for—there will be one city where streets will be closed 

because of a new platform. They need money for overpasses, for reliever roads. And then, there are those venues that want opportunities to take advantage of the All Aboard, and they are looking for 

money for other connecting transportation, both infrastructure and 

operating costs. 

And finally, the cities are all saying, ‘‘Well, now we are obligated 

under law’’—under the railroad law, I guess, that they are going 

to have to pay more money to maintain the improvements. And so, 

my question is, I guess, what do you suggest as the best way to 

go about coordinating the good, the bad, and the ugly for our community? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, Ms. Frankel, we are well aware of the RIF 

loan application. We have been in discussions with the FEC about 

it. It has been—undergone a few changes. I think the short answer 

to your question, in terms of local impacts, those issues are generally—need to be solved locally, because just as we have in other 

areas of Florida, whether it was in the SunRail project in the Orlando area, there was a lot of communications between the impacted municipalities, some of whom were making a financial contribution to get SunRail service, about these issues, about traffic 

interruption, about related infrastructure. 

The RIF program itself can only pay for the railroad infrastructure. But this needs to be part of a broader regional agreement. We 

are concerned specifically about one aspect about it, and that is to 

27 

make sure that we don’t end up subsidizing, if you will, two competing entities between Tri-Rail and the All Aboard Florida vision. 

And we are expecting that there will be an agreement between the 

south Florida Regional Transit Authority and FEC before any RIF 

loan is made to bring that about. 

But I would strongly encourage you to have those local community leaders engage the FEC, in terms of—you know, the issue always comes down to who is going to pay for what. And that generally needs to be a regional discussion. Certainly formula funds 

that are brought to south Florida could be brought to bear on some 

of those needs. But the RIF program could only pay for the railroad 

infrastructure by law. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Does that—would that include the infrastructure 

needed for quiet zones? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Some of that related for quiet zones would be railroad infrastructure. You know, in terms of the signalization, in 

terms of the sort of added, more robust railroad safety measures 

to ensure that we—they would not have to use the horn, and therefore could progress through the community, that generally requires 

greater gates, more precise signalization, and that would be RIFeligible. 

Ms. FRANKEL. And—OK, that is very helpful. What about in coordinating other grant opportunities, such as a TIGER grant? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, those other expenses in the communities 

would be eligible for a TIGER grant, and we have just kicked off 

the new round, round six, which we are very excited about. The flip 

side of that, of course, is, as we have had to say, it is easier to get 

into Harvard than get a TIGER grant, just based on the extraordinary competition for that money. So I don’t want to sort of lay 

out hopes and expectations. But it is certainly eligible for a TIGER 

grant. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK. And just one final question on the trust fund. 

If the trust—if what you say comes true, and there is no more 

money in the trust fund, are there going to be projects around this 

country that are going to be left uncompleted? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Absolutely. If we have, you know, major projects in 

play, and we have to eventually cease reimbursement, you know, 

we would start by slowing reimbursements. But I have to think 

that, across the country, as not only State transportation secretaries—entities like FDOT, but also the transit agencies themselves—have assumed multiyear funding, when suddenly they 

know that they don’t have the cash to float the Federal Government to wait for reimbursement for weeks, if not months, then 

some projects are going to have to be halted. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. PETRI [presiding]. Thank you. Mr. Williams? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate all of you 

being here. Secretary Rogoff, my question to you—I represent 

Texas. Of course a lot of what you are talking about is really important to us. And my question would be to you is this. The President has requested $825 million to implement positive train control, the system, on commuter railroads, with a phase-out scheduled in 2018. 

28 

Now, will you please explain to this subcommittee the significance of the 2018 spending timeline, and as the administration— 

and is the administration planning to propose an extension to the 

December 2015 PTC deadline currently in statute? Do you think it 

would be—it would make sense to extend the deadline beyond 

2015, given your budget proposal? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, Mr. Williams, we certainly recognize that the 

2015 deadline is going to be extraordinarily hard to meet. And, 

quite honestly, we are having new and emergent complications 

with our partners at the FCC regarding the construction of towers 

that are necessary in some cases for PTC to be installed. 

That said, we are not inclined to move the deadline. We are just 

inclined to keep the momentum going. I think the groundbreaking 

step, as part of our budget, is to say we recognize that this is not 

only an urgent safety requirement required by law, it is also an expensive one. And we are helping put some Federal resources behind it. But, no, we are not inclined to necessarily move the deadline. But I think you could take the multiyear budget request as 

an acknowledgment that not everyone is going to make it. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. OK, thank you. My next question would be to you, 

Mr. Friedman. One of the rulemakings that you are working on 

that raises my concern regards requiring speed limiters on heavyduty trucks. In States like mine, Texas, we often have speed limits 

above 65, where trucks and cars, they drive safely on the highway 

at the same rate of speed. If you require the use of a speed limiter, 

you not only prevent the trucker from moving with the flow of traffic, but in many States you will require them to drive below the 

speed limit. This adds a speed differential to the highway which 

leads to accidents. 

And do you, when you are analyzing this, is this a concern, and— 

when you start thinking about this rulemkaing? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you very much, Congressman. As you know, 

we are in the middle of a rulemaking process on this issue. We 

were petitioned by the American Trucking Association, as well as 

safety advocates, to address serious concerns about roadway fatalities with large vehicles. What we are doing as we go through this 

rulemaking is ensuring that we consider the data on to what degree does speeding increase fatalities. The higher the speed, the 

more the energy in a crash, the more dangerous the crash can be. 

What we are trying to do is diligently make sure that we are 

looking into the data, we are evaluating the costs and benefits, and 

we will soon be able to talk to you about how we plan to move forward with rulemaking on this process. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I think it is important, because, you know, 

traffic flow is what we are all after. I appreciate you taking a look 

at it. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you, sir. Safety is our bottom line. With all 

of this, we want to make sure that everyone can get where they 

need to go, in the time they need to go, and that they are safe all 

along the way. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. People and product. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you. 

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

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Eleanor Holmes Norton. 

29 

Ms. NORTON. Let me just say how much I regret not having been 

here to hear the questions, given how this committee has proceeded, proceeding in good faith to try to get a bill out. So I would 

have benefitted greatly. I had a markup, unfortunately, in another 

committee. 

This region experienced a horrific tragedy. And out of that tragedy, I am pleased to say, at least came the first Federal authority 

to regulate Metrorail safety through cities. It was the only form of 

transportation that was not regulated. 

Now, I understand that these grants have been given to local jurisdictions to proceed, but I have a hard time understanding how 

they can do so adequately without the final rule on rail safety. So 

I suppose I should be asking Ms. McMillan about the final rule, 

and how does that link to what the States are doing without the 

authority of the Federal Government in place? 

Ms. MCMILLAN. Thank you very much for that question, Congresswoman Norton. And, you know, indeed, as we have been saying, safety is absolutely critical. And advancing where FTA stands 

in that paradigm was a huge part of MAP–21 that we are taking 

very seriously, and implementing. 

With respect to, again, the State safety oversight agencies that 

are overseeing and partnering with us in carrying out this law, one 

of the things that we realized is that a number of State safety oversight agencies are not yet positioned to meet all of the requirements that are in MAP–21, which stipulated, you know, what they 

need to be, in terms of an organization, and their capabilities for 

enforcement, and issues like that. But, as well, laying out the steps 

that they would need to take in terms of carrying out the regulations. 

On the former, it was important that we also recognize they need 

some resources to get to the place they need to be. So we have been 

working with each one individually—we call it sort of gap analysis—of where they are falling short of what MAP–21 envisions 

them to be, in terms of their capabilities to carry out regulations 

once they are done. And we are ensuring that they have a plan of 

how to get there. And this grant funding will assist them in getting 

to the place that, again, MAP–21 and the Federal Transit Administration would like them to be, in terms of their own capabilities. 

The SSOs will continue to be a partner with us, as on another 

track we are actually implementing the regulatory elements for 

safety, including the commonsense thresholds and requirements 

that need to be met. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, when do you expect those to—— 

Ms. MCMILLAN. We issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking back in the fall, because we knew that this was such a 

groundbreaking new element, and we didn’t want to jump into the 

deep end of the pool of rulemaking without getting substantial 

input from the industry, from the public, and from other stakeholders. We got hundreds of comments on that ANPRM, and we 

are working through reviewing that right now, and we will then be 

proceeding to issue formal notices of proposed rulemaking— 

NPRM—once we have had a chance to go through that—— 

Ms. NORTON. But you don’t have a date on that yet? 

Ms. MCMILLAN. We don’t have a date yet. But we—— 

30 

Ms. NORTON. Could I ask you one question about buses? You 

know, there has been complaints from some parts of the country 

that buses are—and trucks are stepchildren, for example, Ms. McMillan. For the state of good repair, I would like to know—it seems 

to be mostly for rail. And yet, buses and bus facilities have suffered 

tremendously. Is it mostly—what portion of the $86 billion is for 

buses? 

Ms. MCMILLAN. That is an excellent question. And just to be clear, the $86 billion is the estimate of the backlog for deferred investment—reinvestment need in transit infrastructure. A major 

chunk of that figure is related to rail. But what is important to 

note is that even though buses may not make up the vast majority 

of that delta, the buses—because they aren’t as capital intensive as 

rail systems—40 percent of buses, we believe, are in marginal or 

poor condition. This leads to one of the major recommendations we 

have made as part of the President’s budget. 

We have heard, since MAP–21 went into effect, that the bus and 

bus facilities program funding level authorized for those 2 years is 

insufficient to meet the needs of the very constituents you are talking about, which are bus providers, very often in small urbanized 

areas, or rural areas. And we are seeking over a 300-percent increase in the funding level to deal with that particular program. It 

went from a discretionary program under SAFETEA–LU to a formula program under MAP–21. And there were so many parties 

negatively affected that the funding level really does need to be 

raised by this committee. 

So, we are hearing what the industry is telling us, as you have 

heard yourself. And we have a proposal on the table to address 

that need, specifically. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, do I have time just to ask one question for trucks? Thank you very much. 

There has been serious concern about a rule that was withdrawn. 

This has gone on for some years now. It has to do with the entrylevel training requirements. This, I think, goes to Ms. Ferro for 

truck and bus drivers. Now we see an industry where that form of 

transportation, if anything, is increasing. And most of these are not 

your big companies that, of course, have their own driver training. 

In the absence of Federal action for behind-the-wheel training— 

and that is what I am mostly concerned about—what you had—and 

this is a vibrant, private economy—you have got private training 

schools. Some of them may be all right, but, frankly, they have 

been much criticized as being the diploma mills who increase their 

own bottom line because they are offering the service that is otherwise unavailable. 

I am very concerned that you apparently had a rule and withdrew the rule. I like to know—and since we required this years 

ago—when you intend to issue a rule pursuant to the congressional 

mandate to do so. Was it 20 years ago that we said—how many 

years ago were they supposed to be—yes, 20 years ago. 

Ms. FERRO. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. I think you all are a little late, in other words. 

Ms. FERRO. Well, it is clearly a rule that would have reached the 

age of majority and had its license long before now. So I appreciate 

your concern. And I think what is always so surprising to all of us 

31 

is that a—an issue that seems so widely shared in interest and understanding, that to operate a piece of equipment that could weigh 

up to 80,000 pounds, that could carry up to 70 to 80 people, that 

that driver is not required today to have training. And so I appreciate the concerns you raised, Ranking Member Norton. 

The FMCSA has tried for a number of years to move forward on 

a rulemaking, and we have been challenged in finding the research 

that demonstrates the cost benefit analysis that we must provide 

with any rulemaking that shows that training a CDL driver before 

they get behind the wheel actually results in a long-term savings 

and safety gains—or savings through those safety gains. 

Consequently, after we had an NPRM on the street, we did, in 

fact, pull it down shortly after MAP–21 was enacted, moved forward with two research projects that will, in fact, help inform us 

on that very outcome, those safety outcomes that result from training, and have begun the process of convening a—at least striving 

towards an approach of a negotiated rulemaking. There is so much 

agreement on the core of this issue, but the elements for which 

there is still not a clear consensus is how many hours behind the 

wheel, how many classroom hours. Should it be performancebased? Should it be a set number? 

And so, we are moving ahead. We are very eager to because, 

again, for the very concerns you raise—— 

Ms. NORTON. So I don’t know how you are proceeding, whether 

it is mandated rules or what. I invite you to look at how we did— 

when there was disagreement as to how we ought to approach the 

regulation of rail when it hadn’t been—Metrorail had not been 

done before, and we gave guidance to the States on how to do 

things. I mean we got to break out of this if the kind of mandated 

rules don’t work. I certainly hope there is another way to get it 

done, and that it would be within the mandate of Congress. 

And I thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Perry? 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you folks for 

being here. 

Mr. Friedman, I am going to start my questions with you, and 

it regards the National Roadside Survey. I have not myself witnessed, but I have citizens that are concerned, and I am going to 

ask these questions on their behalf. 

The option to drive past, is it that I am driving past and I can 

just keep driving, or I have to pull in and then opt out? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Congressman Perry, for your question. This is, as I mentioned before, a voluntary, anonymous survey. 

Mr. PERRY. Just asking—— 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Absolutely. When the driver first approaches the 

scene, they see this large, orange sign. And if they choose not to 

pull in, they can drive right on past. In fact, we believe that roughly about a quarter of the drivers, after they see the sign and are 

signaled to pull into the site, just simply drive right on. 

Mr. PERRY. All right. Do you keep any records, or is there any 

tallying of—when you say you believe this many people drive past, 

is there any empirical data regarding that, or is it just kind of a 

survey that you take randomly as you watch cars go by? 

32 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. That is an important and very specific question, 

so that is something I would like to get back to you on the record, 

to make sure that I have got the information you need. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. Are there police standing by that sign, or parked 

by that sign, or anywhere close to the entry of that sign, where 

people might be encouraged, because they see police officers there, 

flashing lights, et cetera? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, there are no flashing lights. What you have 

is a police officer, who is standing near the entrance to the road 

side survey site itself. The sign is further up, and that is the very 

first thing that the driver will see. 

Mr. PERRY. And what are the police officer’s actions? Does he 

flag—is he waving people in? Is he just standing there? What is he 

doing? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, that is actually at the discretion of the police officers. The goal of having the police officers there is to ensure 

safety. And so we defer to them in their judgment. In some cases, 

the police officers choose to be the one directing traffic, because 

they have the training, and they are confident, and want to be the 

one directing the traffic safely. In other cases, they don’t, and our 

research team are the ones who are directing the traffic into the 

site. 

Mr. PERRY. So I understand checking for the use of alcohol and 

drugs. And if there is that present, that there aren’t arrests made 

at the location. But doesn’t that put law enforcement in a kind of 

untenable position, if they find somebody under the influence of 

something, that they—you know, I guess you are going to take the 

driver home, or you are going to offer something. But isn’t the driver also violating the law, which at that point the police are in some 

untenable position, because they are duty-bound to act? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, what I can tell you, Congressman Perry, is 

that within the 40 years that this survey has been going on, not 

one survey participant has been arrested. Why? Because we have 

very strict protocols in place, and that works. 

Mr. PERRY. I understand that. I am talking about the police officers. What position are they being placed in? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, the police officer in these positions are 

there to ensure safety. And this protocol ensures that if we come 

upon an impaired driver, that they are safe. And so we are able 

to ensure that the police officer is able to meet—there to do their 

job, and ensure safety, to make sure that—— 

Mr. PERRY. I don’t want to cut you short, but I have got some 

other questions. What I would like you to do, if you could, is address the concerns of the citizens that I am dealing with regarding 

the term ‘‘volunteer,’’ and how it is perceived if the default is to I 

kind of got to opt out. And strictly regarding law enforcement’s 

presence there, and what you might be doing as an agency to encourage people to go, but not with law enforcement, or to really 

truly make it volunteer. And, regarding the safety enforcement, 

maybe some other alternatives. Like, maybe the fire police or a private contractor that says ‘‘safety’’ on it, as opposed to a uniformed 

police officer. 

Moving on, Ms. Ferro, I would like to just talk to you a little bit 

about on-board recorders. In the rulemaking planning that you are 

33 

considering, will there be any requirement that the device have 

features which induce always on data connectivity and real-time 

tracking? That might induce that? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, I am hard-pressed to answer to that level of 

specificity, Congressman, because we are in the midst of the rulemaking process itself. 

Mr. PERRY. Sure. 

Ms. FERRO. But I can tell you that we worked very closely before 

the rulemaking was launched with the technical experts, with 

stakeholders through listening sessions, and the—our advisory 

committee—— 

Mr. PERRY. So—but you would acknowledge that goes beyond the 

statutory requirement. 

Ms. FERRO. I will say that we have stuck very close to the requirements of MAP–21, as to the properties of that electronic logging device. And we will have the rule out shortly, so folks will 

have a chance to answer that question more specifically. 

Mr. PERRY. So, because it would go beyond the statutory requirement, can we get any kind of feeling from you if it will specifically 

state that real-time tracking is not required in the rule itself, that 

verbiage—some type of verbiage to that effect? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, again, I can’t get to that level of specificity. I 

just want to drive home the point that this is a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. We will have a 60-day comment period—— 

Mr. PERRY. OK, all right. 

Ms. FERRO [continuing]. And really will look forward to those 

comments. 

Mr. PERRY. I just want to get a couple other questions in here. 

It is my understanding that most electronic logging—I am not a 

driver—but these devices record time minute-by-minute or secondby-second. So, the question would be, what is a driver to do when 

they are close to the location that they are supposed to stop, but 

they are not there yet? Traffic, something has happened. Are they 

supposed to pull over immediately, or what is the give-and-take 

there? What are the parameters for the drivers that will be operating with these devices? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, today companies have electronic logs on 

their—— 

Mr. PERRY. Sure. 

Ms. FERRO [continuing]. Vehicles of all types. And their guidance 

to drivers is to adhere to the logging timeframes on that—on those 

devices. 

Mr. PERRY. OK, but that is their advice to their drivers. This is 

going to be a Federal rule, it is a force of law. So, when I come up 

within minutes and seconds of my data-logging device, and it says 

I am supposed to be off the road at this time, am I supposed to— 

I am sitting in the middle of the Holland Tunnel, and my clock is 

up. What do I do? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, again, that is the—precisely the kind of question and comment that we expect to see during this comment period. And we will have a great opportunity to have those sorts of 

discussions. 

Mr. PERRY. All right, thank you. 

34 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mrs. Napolitano? I apologize for—we were 

trying to move it up, and—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That is OK. I only got here when nobody was 

here. So I have been waiting through the whole thing. And it is 

great to have the opportunity to pose some questions. 

And, Under Secretary Rogoff and Administrator Nadeau, my 

area is the home of the Corridor of National Significance, rail-truck 

corridor, 100 trains a day, 50,000 trucks through my district. And 

it has a major effect on the roads, on the environment, on the congestion, the poor air quality and safety hazards. And we really appreciate the commitment over the 4 years. But does your freight 

proposal focus on mitigation projects, especially air quality and 

grade separations? And how do you ensure those projects are giving 

a level playing field with freight efficiency—playing field with the 

freight efficiency projects? In other words, so that they do—are able 

to work with those. 

And then I have another question, so I would appreciate a quick 

answer. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I am going to give you a very quick answer, Congresswoman, and that is that I think we will be able to spell this 

out when we actually transmit the bill in April, and be able to describe it. But it really is—the notion is to have combined decisionmaking with freight stakeholders and State and local government, 

and the State and local government will have a say in it. 

Plus, there is a substantial discretionary component to the 

freight program. And the issue of mitigation measures, especially 

those that deal with the particulate matter issues and clean air for 

the children of the community, I think, is critical, and would be 

part of our consideration. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would appreciate some information when 

you do come to that, because I have some areas that are very lowincome that are suffering from impact. 

And the second question is to Administrator Nadeau, is the comprehensive truck size and weight study. And I understand that you 

are working on a comprehensive truck size and weight study required by MAP–21. In the concerns over the study process, the 

data which is being relied upon to draw conclusions about safety 

and infrastructure impacts, there has been some criticism of the 

contractors selected to do the study. And you agreed to set up an 

external peer review to study—six of those individuals on the committee have been found to have direct ties to the trucking industry, 

or who had publicly advocated for higher size and weight limits. 

How are we to ensure that this is going to be a study that is going 

to draw conclusions that are fair to everybody, and that is not predisposed on one side or the other, and might not be skewed? 

And then, it would also go to the prediction that there is going 

to be a 63-percent increase in truck freight by 2040 not being 

factored in. Or that we are not considering the impact this has on 

bridges, and—which are structurally deficient. 

Mr. NADEAU. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano. Let me begin by saying that the Department is working diligently to produce the truck 

size and weight study, as required by MAP–21. And we are equally 

35 

committed to ensuring that it is conducted in a data-driven, objective, and transparent manner. 

I will first touch on the peer review process. The National Academy of Sciences and Transportation Research Board were contracted to provide that peer review. By contract, and by history and 

tradition, in the conduct of such a peer review, it is objective, as 

well. They were responsible for selecting the team. A number of interests volunteered suggestions for that team. We are confident 

that that process, which has already actually been engaged—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How can we be confident of that? 

Mr. NADEAU. I would like to say the results, but that is not sufficient, I am sure, with respect to your question. I think that the 

Transportation Research Board and the National Academy of 

Sciences, and their reputation, and our commitment to ensure that 

their role in the process is objective is something that I hope will 

provide you with some assurance that they will conduct their responsibilities responsibly. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Will we be able to ensure that—is it going to 

be a report to this committee, to be able to ensure that this is being 

followed, and the transparency process? 

Mr. NADEAU. Well, I think, as you know, the statutory deadline 

for the report itself is November 2014. But we are working extremely hard to produce at least elements of the study, and as we 

produce them in a very transparent way, post it on the Web site. 

The work that the individual work groups are doing in the execution of the study itself is being posted on a regular basis. So you 

will see the work product from the various working groups—and 

there are five study areas—as the work is produced. Extensive public outreach and public—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And I understand all of that, sir. My concern 

is, like in California, they try to go to a tandem 53-footer, which 

cannot navigate the on-ramps and off-ramps in our freeways. So, 

for us to be able to be ensuring that this is going to be addressed, 

we want to make sure that we are looking at what some of the outcomes are, so that we can address them from our States, or at least 

from the western Governors’ States’ viewpoint, is so needed. 

Mr. NADEAU. We are confident that the expert teams that we 

have assembled can provide you with that objective, data-driven 

analysis. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And the answer to the bridges? You know, the 

truck freight is not being factored in, supposedly, according to our 

information. And then secondly is that the study—we are relying 

on a sample of bridges, but it does not include those that are structurally deficient, already provided for by this committee. Would you 

take that into consideration, then come back and let us know, 

please? Because this is critical. 

Mr. NADEAU. I was going to suggest—so I am absolutely clear on 

what your question is, and what you are talking about, I would 

suggest that we spend some time together—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you please, sir? Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your—— 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Ribble? 

Mr. RIBBLE. Well, good morning. We are getting near the end, 

folks. Hang in there. 

36 

Administrator Ferro, I have got just one comment, something to 

kind of put on your radar screen. And then a question. 

My comment, first, relates to safe work practices for female drivers. I have had some female drivers coming in, and more and more 

women are entering the trade of driving trucks. They are concerned 

with the work rules requirement, as it relates to finding safe harbor places to rest in the evenings, that there are well-known places 

where they are very safe, and others have worse reputations. 

Sometimes they feel like they are forced in a position of having to 

drive 35, 40, 50 miles further than what the—to find a safe place 

in which to get rest. And they are concerned if they can’t do that, 

then they are in a rest environment where they cannot rest, because they are concerned about personal safety while they are supposed to be resting. So I am putting that on your radar screen as 

something to take a look at. 

I want to just ask a quick question about traffic enforcement-initiated truck inspections. Last year, the agency found that this enforcement activity was highly effective for safety, yet the numbers 

are falling off dramatically. In 2010 through 2013, those inspections dropped by 39 percent. And so far, in this year, 2014, they 

have dropped by 18 percent. Why would a highly effective safety 

method be reduced? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, I—Congressman, thank you. I agree, and I assure you that my agency leadership and employees across the country agree that, at the end of the day, it is all about the driver. And 

so, traffic enforcement is an essential component of ensuring that 

we are getting to the safety outcomes we are driving towards in 

commercial vehicle oversight. 

The data that you are citing actually was raised—brought to our 

attention, and reinforces to—at least to me and my team that we 

have had States—we have a grant structure that has incentivized 

States to do more traffic enforcement through ticketing aggressive 

cars and trucks—or ticketing aggressive drivers operating around 

large vehicles. And those data, that work, is not counted as traffic 

enforcement within the normal grant program. And so, where some 

of their work, they are—inspectors may have been diverted to do 

some of that on-road enforcement work, we wouldn’t see it in the 

numbers. And so, we are re-examining both the level of enforcement work, but also, most importantly, how they are reporting it. 

Now, augmenting that, even more importantly, is we have 

worked extensively with the International Association of Chiefs of 

Police to augment their ability to carry out driver enforcement on 

commercial vehicles. Just straight speeding, unsafe lane changing, 

none of the complexity of different levels of inspection. And IACP 

has been very energized and eager to press forward, because that 

all of a sudden takes our 12,000 grant-funded State officers to almost 800,000, because, again, I couldn’t agree with you more, the 

traffic enforcement is very important. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Could you keep this committee up to speed, then, 

going forward, on how your decisionmaking process is, as it relates 

to that issue, then? 

Ms. FERRO. I certainly will. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you. Thank you very much. And with that, 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

37 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Michaud? 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having 

this hearing. I want to thank the panelists, as well, for being here 

this morning. And my question is for Mr. Nadeau. 

As you are well aware, for several years now Maine has had an 

excellent, real-world experience with the use of heavier trucks, 6- 

axle trucks, that are permitted on both State and interstate highways under our 20-year pilot program. The program is supported 

by the Maine Department of Transportation, Maine State Troopers, 

Maine truckers, Maine shippers, as it has improved road safety 

and lowered the shipping cost, while still protecting our infrastructure, at the same time. In fact, the Maine Department of Transportation engineering analysis found that additional bridge costs to accommodate the heavier trucks are theoretical, and perhaps even 

zero. 

This is not theory or projections for some interest groups. This 

is practical, on-the-ground experience that should be very informative to the Department of Transportation truck size and weight 

team. We hear a lot about the theory and what is really happening 

out there, real world, is different. 

My question is, can you assure me that the Department of Transportation study is giving appropriate weight to the practical and 

real-world experience that we have seen in Maine, not theory, in 

what some of those that might be for or against these are using, 

theoretical examples, not practical experience? 

Mr. NADEAU. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman 

Michaud. I think I can, in that specifically what the study calls for 

is comparing impacts in jurisdictions where heavier weights and 

lengths are allowed to those where they are not. 

So, an empirical approach and analysis of this nature, I think, 

will yield that kind of real-world comparison, based on real experience on the ground. So I think I can assure you of that, sir. 

Mr. MICHAUD. I appreciate that, because I know a couple of years 

ago—actually, 3 or 4 years ago—when we first initially had the 

weight limit discussion for this committee—as you know, in the 

real world, before I became a Member of Congress, that is what I 

used to do, is actually load tractor trailers and box cars. So in some 

of the testimony we heard at that point in time was based on theory, not the practical world. So I appreciate that. 

My second question, also for Administrator Nadeau, is that when 

I met with your predecessor in this December, you know, the Federal Highway Administration pledged to review the standing general and nationwide waivers to determine if they were still warranted in the Buy America revision. Can you tell me whether the 

Federal Highway Administration has indeed conducted a review of 

these general waivers, and what specific steps the Federal Highway Administration intends to take in regard to these nationwide 

waivers that are currently in effect? 

Mr. NADEAU. Be happy to. Thank you for the question, sir. We 

actually since that time—we had initially issued a memo to all of 

our division offices essentially clarifying the application of the national waiver requirements. Subsequently, we put that out for public comment and received an extensive amount of interest in speVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Sep 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\3-12-1~1\87049.TXT JEAN
38 

cific waivers and, of course, all the national waivers that are included. 

As a result of the interest and the complexity of some of those 

issues, we will issue a notice of public rulemaking on the national 

waiver provisions of Buy America, which, by the way, of significant 

interest to the administration is a broadly balanced applicability of 

Buy America provisions to ensure we leverage the economic impact 

of the investments that the taxpayers make in their infrastructure. 

So, that NPRM will provide, I think, the opportunity for the entire highway community to evaluate the national waivers and their 

impact on the program, and we are looking forward to that exchange with the American public. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you. And I can appreciate your comment, 

both—how important this is to the administration. However, I have 

seen in other cases where the administration talks—the President 

talks about Buy America as it relates to the Berry Amendment, 

which has been law since 1941, yet the Department of Defense is 

still not complying with the law that requires all soldiers be 

clothed from head to toe with American-made clothing. They are 

getting around that by giving a waiver for the athletic footwear. 

So, hopefully, in this particular case, what the administration 

says is what the administration will do. I have found in other cases 

that has not been the case, and we are still pushing them to completely comply with the Berry Amendment as it relates to DOD. 

And I know that is not your issue, but hopefully we will see a different tack as it relates to this Buy America provision. 

So, once again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I see I ran 

out of time. Thank you, Mr. Nadeau. 

Mr. NADEAU. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Mullin. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you. I guess they saved the best for last. Is 

that correct, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. PETRI. No. 

Mr. MULLIN. Oh, I am sorry. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MULLIN. I didn’t see you back there. Well, I want to—Secretary Ferro, you know, we have spent actually quite a bit of 

time—you have actually came to my office and visited with me, and 

I appreciate that. We have talked a couple times on the phone. But 

I still have huge concerns with the hours of service. You know, we 

make a lot of rules here that have unintended consequences. And 

when we have a one-size-fit-all approach, it has unintended consequences. And the hours of service is having a lot of unintended 

consequences. 

So I just want to ask you how many hours a week do you work? 

Not at your office, but how many hours a week do you work, from 

the time you get your first email, your first text, first phone call 

in the morning, until your last? 

Ms. FERRO. Quite a few hours. 

Mr. MULLIN. I know, but the industry that you have set, and 

that you are regulating, you are regulating their hours. Their industry is just as important as yours. 

Ms. FERRO. That is right. 

39 

Mr. MULLIN. And you are telling them how many hours they 

have to work, how many hours they have to rest. So how many 

hours do you think you put in a week? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, I will clarify. Again, I work in an office, not behind the wheel, so my office is stationary—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Their office is their truck, and my office used to be 

my truck, too. 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, that is right. Their office is on the roadway. So, 

certainly, I work probably, on average, 60 hours a week. 

Mr. MULLIN. Does that include your Fridays and Saturday phone 

calls? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, I would say on average—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Or Saturday or Sunday phone calls? 

Ms. FERRO. I would just say, if we average it out, it is probably 

about 60 hours a week. 

Mr. MULLIN. I would probably say, just knowing you, you probably actually do a lot more than that. I know, myself, I would easily exceed that. And I also know my sleeping habits. I also know 

that I operate just fine off of 5 hours of sleep. I actually get a headache at 6 hours. I also know that, when I am traveling, there are 

things that happen. 

I mean, for instance, if you got to travel during these storms that 

we have had, especially this winter, and you get stuck at airport, 

and you don’t get to the hotel until 1 a.m. or 2 a.m., like happened 

to us multiple times this year, and your first meeting is scheduled 

for 8 a.m., do you push it back because you got to have 8 hours 

in the berth—or, I am sorry, in the hotel room? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, again, I am going to reinforce. The agency that 

I operate, FMCSA, was established to oversee and ensure that 

crashes involving commercial motor vehicles—— 

Mr. MULLIN. I get that. It is safety. 

Ms. FERRO. And we take all the—— 

Mr. MULLIN. I get that. So you look at safety. But what I am saying is you are treating an industry like it is less important than 

the work that you have to get done. And when you have start 

times, and says that you have 14 hours to get 10 to 11 hours of 

driving done, period, and yet you are going through Atlanta and a 

storm happens, and you got to stop, then we have unintended consequences because they run out of time. And if they don’t get some 

place to get in a berth, in the sleeper, the berth, they don’t get 

someplace to get into the sleeper, then they get fined, serious fined. 

And then that can affect their rating. And then when they return, 

that can affect their ability to carry for certain people. But yet it 

was beyond their control, because they got stuck in the traffic jam, 

and they can’t get their hours done. 

And so, what we end up doing is having trucks pull off on the 

shoulders and off-ramps, and they sit there. And then they run out 

of time. And you know that is true. And there is no safe zones for 

them to go to. So now the trucker, his safety is in concern, because 

he is nowhere in a protected area, and anybody can drive up. They 

know that that guy is there, and they know that they can rob his 

goods and rob him, too, and he can’t move. He has to stop there, 

or he is going to get fined, and his rating is going to go down. Unintended consequences. 

40 

Or, we are in the situation that they have got to pull over because they are out of time and the storm is right on their tailgate, 

it is right behind them. And if they can get through this period, 

this dry period—because they know they can push themselves. 

They know where they are at, and when they are tired, and they 

are not. They are professionals. You are a professional. I am a professional. We know ourselves. 

And the industry has done a great job of regulating themselves. 

But now it is not good enough. Instead, we have got to have somebody come in and tell them, ‘‘You can only work 36 hours at a 

time.’’ ‘‘You cannot start your truck between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m., at 

least for two periods.’’ 1 a.m. to 5 a.m.? Sometimes that is the best 

times to drive, especially if we want to talk about safety, because 

there is less cars on the road. But we are regulating them. And, 

ma’am, no one regulates how many hours you can work. 

Ms. FERRO. That—Congressman, what you just described is absolutely why this is a very difficult industry to be part of, and why 

we have every reason to be grateful for the commercial drivers who 

are professional, who are—put safety first. And the hours—— 

Mr. MULLIN. But we are doing a one-size-fits-all approach. 

Ms. FERRO. The hours—— 

Mr. MULLIN. And this is already having unintended consequences. 

Ms. FERRO. Right. 

Mr. MULLIN. And yet you don’t want to hear anything about it. 

We tried to challenge this. 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, I listen all the time. I like to hear a lot 

about—— 

Mr. MULLIN. But what are we doing about it? Nothing. Instead, 

the rule went ahead and went into effect. And I think it is quite 

hypocritical that you are working outside the parameters and the 

hours that you are telling the truckers that they can’t work. 

Why don’t you do this? Why don’t you do a study. You work the 

exact same hours for 1 month that you are regulating these drivers 

that say they can work. You go off the same, exact timeframe that 

they go off of. Don’t answer your phone, don’t take an email, don’t 

take a phone call during the same periods of time. You work only 

the hours that they are allowed to work—— 

Ms. FERRO. Now, Congressman, again—— 

Mr. MULLIN [continuing]. And see if you can still do your job. 

Ms. FERRO. Congressman, we are talking about an industry 

whose office is behind the wheel, on the highways, with your family, every family member—— 

Mr. MULLIN. And we are talking about me and my drivers. 

Ms. FERRO. I understand. 

Mr. MULLIN. We are talking about an industry that has done a 

phenomenal job—— 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, and drivers—— 

Mr. MULLIN. A phenomenal job since 1978, a phenomenal job—— 

Ms. FERRO. And under this new rule—right. 

Mr. MULLIN [continuing]. Of bringing it down before you and 

FMCSA—— 

Ms. FERRO. I see. 

Mr. MULLIN [continuing]. Got involved. 

41 

Ms. FERRO. But the hours-of-service rule has been out there for 

decades. The recent changes—— 

Mr. MULLIN. But there was flexibility in it. 

Ms. FERRO. The recent changes retained a driver’s ability to run 

70 hours a week. Seventy hours a week. Sixty hours a week, without needing a restart. So, again, there are significant—— 

Mr. MULLIN. And, once again, how many hours do you work a 

week? 

Ms. FERRO. There are significant operating opportunities within 

this rule. And, really, what you have described is why drivers 

should get paid more, and be treated as well as—— 

Mr. MULLIN. I do agree with that. 

Ms. FERRO. Yes. 

Mr. MULLIN. But, ma’am, a one-size-fits-all doesn’t approach, and 

yet you don’t live by the same rules you are requiring this industry 

to live under. And every industry is vitally important. Every profession is just as important as another profession. If there was a 

little bit of flexibility, maybe some human factors in play, maybe 

then we could talk. But a one-size-to-fit-all approach does not fit 

an entire industry. Why don’t we focus on those few that are breaking the law, instead of punishing everybody? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, and that is at the heart of CSA, so thank you 

for that closing point. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you. Mr. Mica? 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. We did save the best for last. So just want 

to clarify that for the record. 

Let me go through some of this. First of all, when we worked on 

MAP–21 our intent was to try to consolidate or eliminate some programs. A report I have here from the staff says we consolidated or 

eliminated 70 DOT programs. I had asked earlier—I guess last 

year—how many positions had been eliminated or cut as a result 

of the consolidation or elimination. Mr. Rogoff, any idea? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Mr. Mica, I don’t think we reduced—net, as a Department, I don’t believe we did reduce positions as a result of 

MAP–21. 

Mr. MICA. See, I think that is horrible, terrible, bad. Staff, get 

the number of FTEs they had last year, this year. That wasn’t the 

intent. The intent was to honestly consolidate, eliminate some positions. Then also devolve to the States where we can—as many 

projects—while we are at that now, are you going to oversee the 

TIGER—this TIGER round? 

Mr. ROGOFF. The TIGER grant is run out of the office of policy, 

which is under the Under Secretary’s office. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. That is yours? OK. Was it $700 million in this—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. $600 million, sir. 

Mr. MICA. $600 million? OK. What is the date for those? 

Mr. ROGOFF. We just put out the notice, and I believe the application date is either—deadline is either April 24th or 28th. 

Mr. MICA. So we have had some bad processing, and not transparency. I hope that will be eliminated. So I want to ask the committee staff also, let’s monitor how that is being done. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Sure, we have—— 

Mr. MICA. Does all that money have to be out by October? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Our goal is to get the grants out in that timeframe. 

42 

Mr. MICA. OK. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Does it have to be out? Not as a matter of law. It 

does not—— 

Mr. MICA. Try not to screw my State this time, too, like they did 

in the first round. I appreciate that. I know you got better as 

things went on. I know, personally, you would—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. We welcome all and every application from Florida—— 

Mr. MICA. I don’t know of any just now, I just meant in the general drafting. 

But, let’s see. So we want to check on the number of positions. 

Guys, be witness to this. Nothing gets eliminated or cut in any— 

OK. 

Project delivery and streamlining. That was also supposed to reduce some of the Federal involvement. Can you—anybody there, 

anything in NEPA? Do you know of any reduction in staffing—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, I think most of the NEPA streamlining, sir, 

takes the form of potentially less work on the part of project sponsors and consultants. 

Mr. MICA. But it also would be some on—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. It could, over time, but—— 

Mr. MICA. But there is no net—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Those provisions, those would still be—— 

Mr. MICA. No net efficiency, then, out of DOT. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I think we are making a lot of our processes more 

efficient. 

Mr. MICA. Oh, OK. Here is what I would like you to do—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. We also got new requirements under MAP–21 

to—— 

Mr. MICA. Maybe for the record—don’t mean to interrupt, but 

maybe for the record, just to substantiate what you are saying, is 

how many more you have processed. Can you tell us? Or the volumes, maybe numbers, process, money amounts, something to substantiate that actually the streamlining is taking place? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I think that would be a good one to take back for 

the record, Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Could you do that? 

Mr. ROGOFF. It is a data call, really—— 

Mr. MICA. I just wanted to substantiate what is going on, and 

what our intent was. 

OK. Got a couple more questions here. TIFIA. How much was 

the total request for TIFIA that we had coming in? I know we— 

about—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. We are doing—we are proposing $1 billion a year 

for 4 years, sir. 

Mr. MICA. That was what we increased it to—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. You, I think, did 750 the first year, and a—— 

Mr. MICA. OK, the first year, and then it went up. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Because we had that little problem of a balance at the 

beginning, so we knocked it down the first year. But what was the 

total number of requests you had for the 750 or the billion, whatever you got? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I—we have got a great many requests. 

43 

Mr. MICA. I mean was it—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. I don’t have a hard number, but it is well in the 

tens of billions of—well in excess of any—— 

Mr. MICA. Provide that to us. Because, see, I heard—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. That is easy. 

Mr. MICA [continuing]. And the administration talking about additional. And you leverage those dollars, it is a big deal. But I know 

there were a hell of a lot more requests than we funded. 

Mr. ROGOFF. There are. It is light years from what it used to be. 

Mr. MICA. And that is the cornerstone of any new bill, a huge 

number of requests. Right? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. OK. So we need to look at that. That should be our 

goal, is to try to get that up there for—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. And it is not just requests. There are larger 

projects, too. 

Mr. MICA. Staff, if you can give me that, too. And work with you. 

I mean that works. And then we are going to do—if they get to rail, 

we could do RIF, which would also provide a lot of capacity for financing, if you don’t have the bucks. 

OK, let’s see. Two things I have got remaining. Hours of service, 

I heard that little discussion. Last hearing I had talked about one 

of the truckers who came up, a trucking official said there is something that they use to see if troops or others are fatigued. We have 

that technology. He says all the stuff they are doing is crap. He 

says it is a waste of time. The records can be—all this stuff is— 

can be done. But he said you can get this equipment the military 

has, put it on a driver, and tell if they are fatigued. Have you 

looked in—anyone looked into that? 

Ms. FERRO. We have been working through the Small Business 

Innovative Research program. 

Mr. MICA. Have you seen that? Has anyone seen it? 

Ms. FERRO. I have seen—— 

Mr. MICA. Could you report back to me, personally, Ms. Ferro? 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, I will. Yes, I will. 

Mr. MICA. Because I was told that, I asked about it last year. 

And I think we are playing a bunch of games, but I am telling you 

those truckers just got me by the collar and said the technology is 

there, but we are in another era. And I would like to see something 

on that. 

Ms. FERRO. OK. 

Mr. MICA. Then the final thing is deaths. Who works in death 

on Transportation? Rogoff, you got the—or Mr. Nadeau? You have 

the numbers from last year, how many people were killed in accidents? 

Mr. NADEAU. Maybe—Acting Administrator Friedman may— 

probably has the roadway fatalities. 

Mr. MICA. How many, Mr. Friedman? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. There were over 30,000 lives lost on our highways last year. 

Mr. MICA. But that is over. Now, we went—we were in the 40s, 

we came down to the 30s, mostly—— 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. It is about 33,000. 

44 

Mr. MICA. 33,000. So where—and then it went up a little bit. Are 

we back? Did we have a reduction over the previous year, or did 

we have an increase? 

Mr. FRIEDMAN. So, we have gotten to historic lows. And then, in 

2012, we saw an increase. The early data from 2013 is showing 

that we have gone back down—— 

Mr. MICA. Back down. 

Mr. FRIEDMAN [continuing]. From 2012. But we have got to wait 

for that data to be finalized to be sure. But we have seen a decrease, according to the early data. 

Mr. MICA. And have we done anything more on—one of the 

things is just like the—separating the traffic with barriers in between on the interstate. I had asked the question, too, how many 

miles we have of that separation. Anybody know? 

Mr. NADEAU. Cable median barriers? 

Mr. MICA. Yes, any kind of barrier, the cheapest thing to keep 

them going across, killing people. 

Mr. NADEAU. That would be cable median barriers. And in many, 

many States across the country—— 

Mr. MICA. Can you give me the number of miles—— 

Mr. NADEAU. My camp would be happy to get back to you 

with—— 

Mr. MICA. Give me the number of miles we have done, and what 

we have got to do. OK? 

Mr. NADEAU. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. I think that is worthwhile. Of course, the distracted 

driver is still a huge problem. 

Well, that is all for now. But I will—how long you going to leave 

the thing open, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. PETRI. Fifteen days. 

Mr. MICA. OK. I might have a couple I want to submit. I look 

forward to Ferro getting me back on that, some of the other information I requested. Don’t forget, Florida, F-l-o-r-i-d-a, Mr. Rogoff. 

Six hundred million dollars, we will take even a small share. Still 

high unemployment. 

Thank you, bye. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Good to see you again, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. PETRI. I ask unanimous consent 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 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. 

[No response.] 

Mr. PETRI. Without objection, so ordered, and this hearing stands 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

45 


Insert offset folio 6 here 87049.006
46 


Insert offset folio 7 here 87049.007
47 


Insert offset folio 8 here 87049.008
48 


Insert offset folio 9 here 87049.009
49 


Insert offset folio 10 here 87049.010
50 


Insert offset folio 11 here 87049.011
51 


Insert offset folio 12 here 87049.012
52 


Insert offset folio 13 here 87049.013
53 


Insert offset folio 14 here 87049.014
54 


Insert offset folio 15 here 87049.015
55 


Insert offset folio 16 here 87049.016
56 


Insert offset folio 17 here 87049.017
57 


Insert offset folio 18 here 87049.018
58 


Insert offset folio 19 here 87049.019
59 


Insert offset folio 20 here 87049.020
60 


Insert offset folio 21 here 87049.021
61 


Insert offset folio 22 here 87049.022
62 


Insert offset folio 23 here 87049.023
63 


Insert offset folio 24 here 87049.024
64 


Insert offset folio 25 here 87049.025
65 


Insert offset folio 26 here 87049.026
66 


Insert offset folio 27 here 87049.027
67 


Insert offset folio 28 here 87049.028
68 


Insert offset folio 29 here 87049.029
69 


Insert offset folio 30 here 87049.030
70 


Insert offset folio 31 here 87049.031
71 


Insert offset folio 32 here 87049.032
72 


Insert offset folio 33 here 87049.033
73 


Insert offset folio 34 here 87049.034
74 


Insert offset folio 35 here 87049.035
75 


Insert offset folio 36 here 87049.036
76 


Insert offset folio 37 here 87049.037
77 


Insert offset folio 38 here 87049.038
78 


Insert offset folio 39 here 87049.039
79 


Insert offset folio 40 here 87049.040
80 


Insert offset folio 41 here 87049.041
81 


Insert offset folio 42 here 87049.042
82 


Insert offset folio 43 here 87049.043
83 


Insert offset folio 44 here 87049.044
84 


Insert offset folio 45 here 87049.045
85 


Insert offset folio 46 here 87049.046
86 


Insert offset folio 47 here 87049.047
87 


Insert offset folio 48 here 87049.048
88 


Insert offset folio 49 here 87049.049
89 


Insert offset folio 50 here 87049.050
90 


Insert offset folio 51 here 87049.051
91 


Insert offset folio 52 here 87049.052
92 


Insert offset folio 53 here 87049.053
93 


Insert offset folio 54 here 87049.054
94 


Insert offset folio 55 here 87049.055
95 


Insert offset folio 56 here 87049.056
96 


Insert offset folio 57 here 87049.057
97 


Insert offset folio 58 here 87049.058
98 


Insert offset folio 59 here 87049.059
99 


Insert offset folio 60 here 87049.060
100 


Insert offset folio 61 here 87049.061
101 


Insert offset folio 62 here 87049.062
102 


Insert offset folio 63 here 87049.063
103 


Insert offset folio 64 here 87049.064
104 


Insert offset folio 65 here 87049.065
105 


Insert offset folio 66 here 87049.066
106 


Insert offset folio 67 here 87049.067
107 


Insert offset folio 68 here 87049.068
108 


Insert offset folio 69 here 87049.069
109 


Insert offset folio 70 here 87049.070
110 


Insert offset folio 71 here 87049.071
111 


Insert offset folio 72 here 87049.072
112 


Insert offset folio 73 here 87049.073
113 


Insert offset folio 74 here 87049.074
114 


Insert offset folio 75 here 87049.075
115 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 76 here 87049.076