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

79–896 PDF 2013

IIMPLEMENTING MAP–21: PROGRESS REPORT 

FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

MODAL ADMINISTRATORS 

(113–6) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 14, 2013 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

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 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

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) 

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 

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 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration ........ 5 

Hon. Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration .............. 5 

Hon. Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ........................................................................................................................ 5 

Hon. David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 5 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Thomas E. Petri, of Wisconsin ...................................................................... 50 

Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II, of West Virginia .............................................................. 58 

PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE 

RECORD SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Victor M. Mendez: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Answers to questions from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Thomas E. Petri, of Wisconsin ............................................................... 68 

Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., of Tennessee ......................................................... 70 

Hon. Gary G. Miller, of California .................................................................. 71 

Hon. Lou Barletta, of Pennsylvania ................................................................ 72 

Hon. Tom Rice, of South Carolina ................................................................... 72 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, of Texas ........................................................... 76 

Hon. Peter M. Rogoff: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79 

Hon. Anne S. Ferro: 

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

Answers to questions from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Thomas E. Petri, of Wisconsin ............................................................... 90 

Hon. Andre ́ Carson, of Indiana ....................................................................... 91 

Hon. Jerrold Nadler, of New York .................................................................. 93 

Hon. Markwayne Mullin, of Oklahoma .......................................................... 94 

Hon. David L. Strickland: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 96 

Answers to questions from the following Representative: 

Hon. Jerrold Nadler, of New York .................................................................. 100 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, list 

of FTA projects and funding levels ..................................................................... 25 

Hon. Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 5 

inserts for the record.......................................................................... 31, 36 (2), 38, 44 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

Cynthia Hilton, Executive Vice President, Institute of Makers of Explosives, 

written statement ................................................................................................. 103 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 79896.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 79896.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 79896.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 79896.004
(1) 

IMPLEMENTING MAP–21: PROGRESS REPORT 

FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION MODAL ADMINISTRATORS 

THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

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

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will come to order. Our Senior Minority Member, Mr. DeFazio, I know is here. I saw him in the hall 

a minute ago, so I think he will be here in plenty of time to make 

his statement. 

I should just note that we appreciate the good work that you and 

your staff did in preparing the statements and that you will be 

doing your best to summarize them in approximately 5 minutes or 

so. There was a delay in the receipt of one or two of the statements, and I understand it is not anyone’s fault in The Department, that OMB was a little slow in reviewing the testimony. And 

we join with you in urging them to do it in a timely fashion, because it enables staff and Members to do a better job of reviewing 

your testimony and preparing to ask questions, and so it is an important part of the process to do things in a timely manner. 

Today’s hearing will focus on oversight of the Department of 

Transportation’s implementation of the law Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century, better known as MAP–21. MAP–21 

was signed into law by the President on July 6th, 2012, and authorizes the Federal Highway Transit and Highway Safety Programs through September 30th of 2014. It consolidated or eliminated over 70 Federal programs that were duplicative. These 

changes provide greater focus on the core national systems and 

give States greater flexibility to meet their transportation needs. 

MAP–21 also started the process of holding States and transit 

agencies accountable for their funding decisions. States and transit 

agencies, in conjunction with metropolitan planning organizations, 

will have to incorporate performance measures into their long-term 

transportation plans. These performance measures will help States 

and transit agencies focus their limited Federal resources on 

projects that have the greatest benefit. 

MAP–21 made major reforms and improvements to the project 

delivery process. It currently can take almost 14 years for a transVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:12 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\3-14-1~1\79896.TXT JEAN
2 

portation project to be completed if Federal funding is involved. 

This is unacceptable. Some of the MAP–21 reforms include allowing Federal agencies to review projects concurrently, penalties for 

agencies that don’t meet project review deadlines, and expanded 

categorical exclusions for projects in the existing right-of-way or 

with limited Federal investment. These reforms will help cut bureaucratic red tape and quickly deliver the economic and safety 

benefits of transportation projects. 

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

FEMA to replace equipment or rebuild their systems after a disaster, but after Hurricane Katrina, transit agencies sought an 

emergency program similar to the Emergency Relief Program operated at Federal Highways Administration. This program was recently utilized by States and communities that were affected by 

Hurricane Sandy. 

Numerous trucking safety provisions were included in MAP–21, 

which reflects Congress’ commitment to keeping truckers and the 

traveling public safe. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is tasked with implementing new regulations on electronic 

logging devices, hazardous materials, safety permits, a drug and alcohol clearing house, and motor carrier registration requirements 

related to unsafe reincarnated carriers. These regulations will keep 

drivers safe while maximizing the efficiency of the trucking industry. 

Congress recognized that new challenges have emerged affecting 

highway safety. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is required to implement a national priority safety program 

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

countermeasures, occupant protection, motorcycle safety, distracted 

driving, and graduated driver’s licensing. 

These reforms are only part of the sweeping changes made in 

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

how their agencies are implementing the reforms that I have highlighted and others that we will include in MAP–21. 

Now I would recognize Ranking Member DeFazio for an opening 

statement, should he care to make one. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I want 

to hear from the witnesses here before us today. In the last Congress, MAP–21 was one of the few products of any note, and it did 

provide for essentially a status quo continuation of our existing 

service transportation programs; however, as we know from numerous commission reports and reports from the American Society of 

Civil Engineers and others, that level of investment is inadequate. 

Our systems are deteriorating more quickly than we are repairing 

them and we are failing to undertake major new initiatives to get 

people out of congestion, make the country more competitive in the 

world, and we are lagging far, far, far behind our international 

competitors, who realize the importance of investing in transportation, moving goods and people more efficiently. 

It has been, you know, a given since the founding of the Nation, 

George Washington with canals, Abraham Lincoln with railroads, 

3 

Dwight David Eisenhower with highways, and Ronald Reagan incorporating transit into the Highway Trust Fund, that these are 

basic and important investments that need to be made by the Federal Government on behalf of the States and territories, you know, 

the problem of, you know, us continuing to grow. 

And I look forward to having a dialogue today and I will be in 

particular focused on the fact, and most of our colleagues who 

aren’t on this committee don’t know this and many of our colleagues on this committee don’t know this, that in 2014, Federal 

investment in service transportation, which is currently about $50 

billion a year, will drop to $6 to $7 billion in 1 year. That will mean 

basically the States will have to get in line to get reimbursed for 

projects that they have already undertaken, and the States are 

very unlikely to initiate new projects in that year, given the dearth 

of Federal funds. 

And this is something that we need to begin talking about in this 

committee. I know no one wants to talk about taxes or revenues 

of any sort, but that is the reality: $50 billion this year; 2014, $7 

billion. That is pathetic, and we have to do something about it. And 

I am going to be asking the various witnesses how they plan to 

handle that in the agencies under their jurisdiction. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. I would now like to recognize the chairman of the full committee, Bill Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to echo 

what Mr. DeFazio said there. That is our biggest challenge we face 

moving forward, and so we need to—as I have said over and over, 

we have got to look at all of the options that are out there and look 

at some new options to funding the transportation system. Think 

outside the box, if you will. 

But today here we appreciate the witnesses being here and this 

oversight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this oversight 

hearing how MAP–21 is being implemented. I think it is important. 

It is a historic piece of legislation with the many reforms and the 

consolidations that we have put in place. 

I would be remiss by not thanking Chairman Mica for his leadership on shepherding the bill through the last Congress, and as Mr. 

DeFazio says, one of the success stories of the 112th Congress. 

I am especially interested in the performance measures and the 

planning process. I think that is something that will go a long way 

to improving the system, but again, we need to make sure we are 

on top of what is happening, what is not happening, what is working, what is not working, so as we move towards next year and reauthorizing another surface transportation bill, we can learn from 

the past. 

I also just want to let folks know that starting sometime this 

spring, the vice chair of the full committee, Mr. Duncan, we have 

set up a special panel, strengthening the economy by improving 

freight transportation, something the Hill for 6 months will be 

studying hard, not only here in Washington, but we will get out 

into the countryside trying to figure out, trying to make recommendations to us on legislation that will improve the movement 

of freight, the movement of goods in this country. 

4 

So I look forward. As I look out in the audience today, a lot of 

folks are interested in those things. And as we move forward, 

Chairman Duncan will be looking at those in an in-depth way. 

So again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing 

today, and look forward to the testimony. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. I would like to recognize the Senior Minority Member of the full committee, Nick Rahall. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I first want to commend all the Administrators with us this morning for the tremendous job they do under very difficult circumstances and in the face 

of such adversity, certainly with respect to the sequester and the 

fact that here in the middle of March they still do not know what 

their budgets will look like for the remainder of the fiscal year. So 

that has to be an extremely challenging proposition for each of you. 

To those who say that the Federal Government should be run like 

a business, well, this is no way to run a business. 

Today I do look forward to hearing about and discussing some of 

the initiatives that I spearheaded in MAP–21, such as closing the 

loopholes that allowed projects to be subdivided into separate contracts to avoid complying with the Buy America provisions. 

I am also concerned with an administrative effort by FHWA to 

expand the 30-year standing waiver exempting all manufactured 

projects from Buy America. This expansion of the waiver was done 

by memo, without public input and no opportunity for comment. 

In the area of transit, I have concerns with the new Bus and Bus 

Facilities Formula Grant Program, which is being implemented as 

grants to the States rather than directly to transit systems in areas 

with a population of less than 200,000. And I look forward to some 

discussion of that during this hearing. 

There is one additional area that I believe deserves discussion, 

and although today may not be the appropriate time since not 

enough time has elapsed since enactment of MAP–21, and that is 

how the States are addressing what were formerly called transportation enhancements, scenic byways and recreational trails under 

the new TAP program, the Transportation Alternatives Program. 

And in this regard, I commend you, Chairman Petri, for the leadership and strong advocacy that you have been over this program. 

So these initiatives first authorized in landmark ISTEA in 1991 

have done so much to improve the quality of life in rural and urban 

areas as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And now we turn to our distinguished 

panel, consisting of Administrator Victor Mendez, Federal Highway 

Administration; Peter Rogoff, Federal Transit Administration; Administrator Anne Ferro, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; and David Strickland, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Again, we thank you for the effort that went into this, invite you 

to summarize the remarks, the statements in about 5 minutes. And 

I think we will begin with Administrator Mendez. 

5 

TESTIMONY OF HON. VICTOR M. MENDEZ, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; HON. PETER M. 

ROGOFF, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION; HON. ANNE S. FERRO, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; AND HON. 

DAVID L. STRICKLAND, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. MENDEZ. Well, thank you. And good morning everyone. Mr. 

Chairman, Ranking Member DeFazio, members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Federal 

Highway Administration’s progress in implementing MAP–21. 

Immediately after President Obama signed MAP–21 last year, 

FHWA moved very quickly to effectively carry out its provisions, 

and I am pleased to highlight our extensive efforts to date. Transportation moves our economy, and your bipartisan support for 

MAP–21 is a recognition of the national priority to keep America’s 

transportation network operating safely and reliably. MAP–21 sustains our Highway Trust Fund and provides States and local communities with a 2-year horizon of funding to build the roads, 

bridges, tunnels and transit systems that our economy needs to 

stay competitive. That means contractors and construction companies are able to plan for big projects and make the kind of employment decisions that put hardworking Americans back to work. 

Under MAP–21, Congress provided $81 billion for a restructured 

performance-based Federal-aid highway program to better target 

investments and increase transparency and accountability. And 

FHWA wasted no time to provide States guidance and other information, including anticipated funding amounts, to ensure States 

could adequately plan and begin obligating funds on October 1st for 

critical projects. 

MAP–21 also makes great progress in improving safety, expanding the TIFIA credit program, and ensuring better transportation 

planning. It also includes many provisions that complement the 

successes of FHWA’s Every Day Counts innovation initiative, 

which I launched 3 years ago to present new technologies, new 

ideas, and new ways of thinking to deliver projects faster and expedite the deployment of new and proven technologies into the marketplace. These provisions will help us become more innovative, 

allow the public to enjoy the benefits of upgraded infrastructure 

sooner, and ensure the best value for every taxpayer dollar. 

MAP–21 provided DOT with unprecedented opportunities to improve freight movement throughout our Nation, including the establishment of a national freight policy and national freight network, and the development of national and State freight plans. Our 

implementation efforts to date are very extensive, beginning with 

Secretary LaHood’s announcement of the creation of our Freight 

Policy Council last summer, which brings together senior DOT 

leadership and a variety of experts. 

We are also creating a National Freight Advisory Committee to 

engage the public and private sector to help us improve the way 

we move freight. And, we are actively working to designate the national freight network to better focus attention on the highways 

most critical to the movement of goods. 

6 

MAP–21 made a number of other reforms to existing programs 

and provisions that required our immediate attention and action to 

ensure that Federal, State, local and tribal transportation partners 

were ready on October 1st. Accordingly, shortly after MAP–21 

passed, we created a MAP–21 Web site to link our employees, 

stakeholders, and the public to the new act and to provide related 

resources as they became available. We held 26 informational 

Webinars across the spectrum of our programs that reached over 

10,000 stakeholders. We also provided several opportunities to hear 

from the public. For example, in the area of performance management, we held a series of listening sessions and other meetings last 

summer. And in September, we held a National Online Dialogue 

with more than 8,000 visitors, who contributed 228 ideas for our 

consideration. 

Additionally, we developed and posted on the Web site numerous 

guidance documents, questions and answers, and other information 

in a timely manner to help the Nation’s Federal, State, local, and 

tribal transportation agencies implement MAP–21 programs and 

provisions, and to highlight opportunities available under the new 

law. 

We also took swift action to implement MAP–21 provisions requiring regulatory changes. Our collaborative efforts with FTA and 

other Federal agencies helped us to meet several rulemaking deadlines, and we are on track to complete all of the remaining requirements. 

The achievements I have highlighted today represent just some 

of the efforts we have underway at FHWA to implement MAP–21. 

We look forward to working with all of you as we continue to make 

progress toward full and effective implementation of these critical 

programs and provisions. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks and would 

be happy to answer your questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Administrator Rogoff. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

DeFazio, and other members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight the Federal Transit Administration’s 

progress toward implementing key provisions of MAP–21, which 

makes many bold policy changes that the administration has 

sought. Despite facing an array of funding challenges, I am pleased 

by the progress we are making to implement MAP–21 at the FTA. 

As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, in your opening remarks, we 

have a new Emergency Relief Program, which the President first 

proposed in his budget for 2012. It was authorized in MAP–21, and 

thankfully it was enacted in time for the worst natural disaster 

ever to befall public transportation in the United States, Hurricane 

Sandy, which affected more than 40 percent of the Nation’s transit 

ridership at the height of the storm. 

The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act originally granted $10.9 

billion to FTA to reimburse transit agencies for response and immediate recovery and to mitigate the impact of future disasters. To 

date, we have allocated more than $390 million of that amount to 

reimburse the hardest hit agencies in New York, New Jersey, and 

elsewhere. By next week, we intend to award more than $150 million in additional funds. By the end of this month, we will anVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:12 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\3-14-1~1\79896.TXT JEAN
7 

nounce the distribution of the first $2 billion made available under 

that program. 

At the Obama administration’s urging, Congress granted FTA 

historic new authority to provide long overdue Federal safety oversight, and we welcome this new responsibility. Our goal is to implement a safety management system approach that improves safety 

using commonsense standards that will add value without adding 

a great deal of cost or burdensome regulations to our transit agencies. 

We recognize going in that a one-size-fits-all approach to safety 

is not the best approach for the unique needs of individual transit 

providers. FTA will set a national framework and then work with 

each agency to develop a safety system that targets its greatest 

safety vulnerabilities, and those vulnerabilities will not be the 

same from one transit agency to the next. 

Meanwhile, we have begun to work closely with all of the affected Governors, our transit rail safety advisory committee— 

TRACS—and other stakeholders to embark on the necessary rulemaking and public education process. 

I would like to follow up on something that Mr. DeFazio spoke 

to, namely the condition of our infrastructure, because keeping our 

transit system safe goes hand in hand with bringing our aging systems into a state of good repair. Following on the Administration’s 

budget proposal, MAP–21 established a new, vitally needed formula program for railways and busways, and initiated a new national transit asset management program that will cover all transit 

systems. This program will help the industry tackle deferred rehabilitation, replace outdated transit assets, and support ongoing 

maintenance efforts that are key to maintaining a transit network 

that continues to provide reliable and desirable service for the 

American public. 

I appreciate the committee’s support for the policy goals in MAP– 

21; however, I need to remind the committee that FTA faces budget 

challenges that hamper our ability to address these goals. Some of 

those challenges Mr. Rahall spoke to in his statement. 

Overall, the sequester struck $656 million from FTA’s budget. It 

reduced program funding for our capital investment grants program by almost $100 million. This will mean that few, if any, additional New Starts construction projects will be fundable in the near 

term. Even more troubling is the fact that ongoing major New 

Starts and Small Starts projects will experience increasing borrowing costs as FTA will now be required by sequestration to slow 

its scheduled grant payments to projects for which we have already 

made written financing agreements. 

Even without the sequester, under MAP–21, our New Starts/ 

Small Starts capital investment program was authorized to receive 

10 percent less in funding when compared with amounts available 

to carry out the projects in recent fiscal years. 

These are just some of the significant funding challenges that direct our programs and really undermine some of our efforts to 

serve a record number of transit riders. And I would emphasize 

that: we are seeing a record number of transit riders across the 

country today. FTA will still do all it can to continue making 

8 

progress to live up to the promise of MAP–21 with the resources 

we have available to us. 

And if I could just speak to one other thing that Chairman Shuster mentioned and Administrator Mendez mentioned. The area of 

freight policy is one that holds great promise for coordination between the new task force that the chairman mentioned and what 

we are doing at DOT. Administrator Mendez spoke to the fact that 

the Secretary has stood up a new Freight Policy Council and has 

brought together a freight advisory committee that we are convening now. It just seems to me that this is a unique opportunity 

to have those two entities work together with Chairman Shuster’s 

task force toward identifying common challenges and work toward 

common goals, and we look forward to that partnership going forward. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Administrator Ferro. 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member 

DeFazio and subcommittee members. Thank you for the opportunity to join my colleagues today in sharing the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration’s plans to implement the provisions 

of MAP–21. 

Let me start by thanking the subcommittee and the full committee for your work on this important legislation. It absolutely has 

provided the FMCSA key enforcement tools to carry out its mission 

to reduce crashes and injuries involving large trucks and buses. 

Every life is precious, any one is one too many to lose, and we are 

absolutely grateful for the provisions in MAP–21 that really 

strengthen our overall authority. 

The legislation enhances enforcement strategies consistent with 

the agency’s three core principles, which are raising the bar to 

come into this industry, to ensure that those who are operating are 

maintaining high standards as they operate on our highways, and 

to make sure everybody has the tools to get the bad actors off the 

road. 

FMCSA began putting our new safety tools into place quickly 

after enactment of the legislation. Late last year, for example, we 

ordered a rogue moving company in California that was holding 

hostage the goods of 54 consumers, refusing to release them until 

they pay a significantly higher rate. We were able to use the new 

authority under MAP–21 not just to order the company to release 

the goods, but to promptly revoke their authority as well. 

Just a couple weeks ago we used new authorities within MAP– 

21 to shut down a bus company that had refused us access to their 

records as we were completing a thorough investigation of their operations. We promptly revoked that company’s authority. We are 

working with them today. 

MAP–21 rulemaking provisions are a key element of our priority 

work plan, as they need to be. We are implementing them very 

carefully and deliberately. 

The drug and alcohol clearinghouse, for example, that is required 

in MAP–21 is one that we expect to have on the street as a proposed rule this spring. That is a clearinghouse provision that will 

provide employers preemployment knowledge of applicants who 

may have tested positive for drugs or alcohol, or test refusals, and 

9 

thereby avoid hiring someone that is not qualified to operate a 

commercial vehicle. 

MAP–21 also directs FMCSA to implement a full-scale electronic 

logging requirement for all entities operating under hours of service, maintaining records of duty status. We cannot move quickly 

enough on this important legislation that transitions the paper logbook world into one where hours of service are monitored electronically, thereby improving overall compliance with a very important 

provision. 

We have met extensively through listening sessions and other 

meetings with our advisory committee, listening sessions with a 

broad audience of drivers, enforcement personnel, industry specialists, technology providers to ensure we are getting the provisions 

right in that rule, and we expect that to be a supplemental notice 

of proposed rulemaking incorporating all the requirements within 

MAP–21 by September of this year. 

We are actively working on other requirements as well within 

the new MAP–21 legislation. That includes implementing a knowledge test for any applicant for authority prior to gaining their authority, to demonstrate their knowledge not only in our safety 

rules, but where applicable in consumer and commercial rules as 

well. 

We are proceeding ahead with behind the wheel and classroom 

training requirements for CDL operators, and moving forward with 

very important research, including a field test on a 34-hour restart 

provision, including examining insurance minimums, and assessing 

crash rates under the new agricultural exemptions, which just 

went into a final rule actually posted today. 

All in all, MAP–21 helps this agency raise the safety bar for operators on our highways, making our roads safer for everybody. 

And with that, again, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member DeFazio 

and Members, we thank you, and I will be pleased to answer any 

questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Administrator Strickland. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member DeFazio and members of the committee. I appreciate on behalf of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

to testify about the implementation of our agency’s work on MAP– 

21. 

Every member of this committee is aware of the challenges that 

the Department faces in roadway safety, and that is why we appreciate the prioritization that was enumerated in MAP–21. 

Highway fatalities fell to 32,367 in 2011, making it the lowest 

level since 1949 and a 1.9-percent decrease from the previous year. 

The historic downward trend in recent years continued through 

2011 and represents a 26-percent decline in traffic fatalities since 

2005. For the first time since 1981, motor vehicle crashes were not 

among the top ten causes of death in the United States. In 2011 

we also saw the lowest fatality rate ever recorded with 1.10 deaths 

per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. 

Other important data points include that fatalities declined by 

4.6 percent for occupants of passenger cars and light trucks. Drunk 

driving fatalities dropped 2.5 percent in 2011. 

10 

The number of people killed in distracted affected crashes rose 

by 1.9 percent. Fatalities increased amongst large truck occupants 

by 20 percent. I would like to assure the committee that we are 

working closely with my fellow Administrator, Anne Ferro, and the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to gather more detailed information about the issues around large truck occupant 

crashes to better understand this increase that we saw. 

Bicycle and pedestrian fatalities increased by 8.7 percent and 3 

percent, respectively. This spike is alarming, and we are taking a 

number of steps in addressing this. First, the Department will be 

hosting two bicycle safety summits in the coming year. We will be 

working with advocates, safety experts and average riders. We look 

to examine what safety strategies work and what isn’t working, 

and will use this information to make bicycling safer throughout 

the Nation. We will target a series of events in the areas that have 

experienced the most fatalities and will work with State and local 

officials to make sure they are taking advantage of the resources 

available to them. 

We will challenge our State and local partners to help us better 

understand what is happening on the ground; for example, to what 

extent changes in bicycle fatalities might be related to increased 

ridership. And, finally, we will launch a new demonstration program to improve driver and pedestrian interactions and behavior. 

In spite of all of our gains in lowering overall fatalities, motor 

vehicle traffic crashes continue to be a leading cause of death for 

those that are in our younger age groups. That is why programs 

such as graduated driver licenses, or GDLs, are so important. And 

I am pleased that the Congress authorized incentive grants in 

MAP–21 to encourage more States to adopt such an approach for 

younger, inexperienced drivers. 

MAP–21’s consolidation of the various grant programs from 

SAFETEA–LU into the new Section 405 National Priority Safety 

Program is actually a great bonus and administrative relief for the 

States that actually use our programs. We have been looking to 

have a consolidated application and annual deadline and greater 

flexibility to ensure grant funds are directed to priority highway 

safety programs. 

We have acted quickly to implement these particular programs. 

Less than 2 months after enactment, we have issued a notice of 

fund availability for the distracted driving grants. At the last deadline of the month, 34 States, including the District of Columbia and 

three territories, have submitted applications for these grants. We 

published an interim final rule for the National Priority Safety Program in January 2013. This IFR provides States the guidance 

about the application process for all NHTSA highway safety grants. 

The comment period will remain open until April 23rd, 2013. 

In support of learning about these new programs, we have conducted three Webinars with the State Highway Safety Program offices and with a step-by-step process of how the new grant processes work. We will have two additional Webinars scheduled for 

March. 

Please be aware that the full year continuing resolution passed 

by the House last week would fail to provide funds for NHTSA in 

a manner consistent with MAP–21. Specifically, it would not proVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:12 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\3-14-1~1\79896.TXT JEAN
11 

vide funding for the two new important MAP–21 grant programs, 

the distracted driving grant and the graduated driver’s licenses 

program for young drivers. The Senate’s version of the CR fully implements this MAP–21 authorization. We urge this committee to 

work with the Congress and make sure that resources for NHTSA 

can support these important priority safety programs. 

As an agency, we are dedicated for our mission for safety. We 

work closely with the States and will continue our partnership to 

make sure that MAP–21 is effectively implemented. 

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

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all for your statement. And I 

think I will begin the questioning. I would be remiss if I didn’t 

state that the biggest thing facing the committee and the country 

within the transportation area is how to maintain our infrastructure and adapt it to the opportunities and needs of the times. And 

as you all know, the Highway Trust Fund provides funding for 

most highway transit and highway safety programs and is projected to run out of money in 2015. I understand the income, covering about 60 percent of the total that is going out, is something 

that needs to be addressed. 

Does the Administration have any recommendation on how to address the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me address some of it, and the 

other Administrators may wish to chime in on this. 

I think one of the really important issues that we are facing, as 

you mentioned, is the issue of funding. And as we move forward, 

I can tell you one of the really critical pieces of MAP–21 is the 

TIFIA program. Certainly we have raised the awareness of bringing the private sector into the industry to help us with the funding 

issues. So I think that is really a good thing that you have done 

and increased, within MAP–21. 

Obviously, the bigger issue is, of course, working with the administration and with Congress finding solutions to move us to where 

we need to be and be able to invest as a Nation to move forward. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Sir, obviously the condition of the Highway Trust 

Fund is a concern to all of us, as we have to monitor the balances 

to make sure that we are going to get through the MAP–21 period 

in a fashion that will enable us to continue to make grants through 

2014. 

I think it is notable the President did propose in his budget last 

year a proposal to use half the savings from the drawdown in the 

wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to maintain transportation spending 

at robust levels absent a trust fund solution. So there is a proposal 

to make sure that we do not fall off the cliff. It is not necessarily 

a trust fund solution. 

Ms. FERRO. I have nothing further to add. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Likewise. 

Mr. PETRI. I would just note that the association representing 

the trucking industry is now endorsing an increase in diesel fuel 

taxes, which have not been increased since 1993, not because they 

want it, but because they need the infrastructure for their industry, and feel that of the different choices that they confront this is 

probably the most feasible. 

12 

And we do see a number of States—and of course, these programs are Federal, but they are administered through the States 

in the highway area, and they face many, many challenges and opportunities at that level, and raise their own funding. A number of 

States are stepping up, whether it is Virginia or Wyoming recently, 

or others. So we are at some point going to have to do our duty 

however we can at the national level so that our country has adequate transportation infrastructure going forward. 

I am interested in Administrator Ferro’s discussion of electronic 

log recordkeeping for drivers. And this is clearly a way to make it 

much more accurate. It also runs some risks of being sort of too 

rigid in the sense that if you run into situations, you must have 

some fudge factor or if a driver is within a few miles of being at 

home and suddenly runs up against the limit, is supposed to lay 

over for a period of time. How do you reconcile the standards that 

are written down that look very precise with the reality that people’s fatigue level and so on on an individual basis varies quite a 

bit, and one-size-fits-all is easy to administer, but it is not necessarily sensible in the individual situation? We are going to get a 

lot of pushback, as you know, and you already are, on some of this. 

Ms. FERRO. Well, Mr. Chairman, your point with regard to the 

value of a uniform electronic logging rule is a very strong one as 

it pertains to safety and ensuring, again, that everyone is sort of 

operating on a level playing field when it comes to hours of service 

compliance. 

We have seen a number of companies, large and small, transition 

to the use of electronic logging devices, and doing so very effectively, very profitably and finding that it is a very efficient mechanism, and over time, sometimes almost immediately, drivers prefer 

it as well. 

With regard to developing the rule, as committee members know, 

we have been working on this issue and the development of a 

strong electronic logging rule for several years now and have included in that development a number of listening sessions with industry, with drivers at the Mid-America Truck Show, with a broad 

cross-section of interest groups, and I feel very strongly that we are 

incorporating a number of those comments and that input into the 

SNPRM that we are developing. 

It really has four core factors in the rule itself: first are just the 

technical specifications for the equipment, which shares its own 

complexity and requires flexibility with the new technologies today; 

ensuring that drivers are not harassed with the use of those devices; ensuring that any sort of supporting documents requirements 

that are required to document and prove an operator’s hours are 

reduced and streamlined through the use of those devices; and then 

the requirement itself. Again, we are taking that concern that you 

raised into account. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogoff, the new 

Transit Safety Oversight Program, what is going to happen to that 

with sequestration in terms of implementation? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, it certainly—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Turn on your—— 

13 

Mr. ROGOFF. I am sorry. It certainly holds us back. Like a number of the other MAP–21 regulatory requirements, sequestration is 

going to result in a sizeable hit to my administrative budget, which 

is likely to result in us having to furlough people before the end 

of the year unless some relief is found. 

And obviously we have always treated safety as the highest priority. That has been the Secretary’s entreaty to us, and we have 

always followed that, but this new safety authority is one where 

this committee actually authorized some increased administrative 

funding for us, recognizing that we needed that additional staff 

complement to take on this new responsibility. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Uh-huh. OK. 

Mr. ROGOFF. What is happening is the reverse. Rather than get 

the added authorized levels, we are getting a freeze minus the sequester. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Good. So we have got a problem there. And 

I just got—my most recent numbers I have are that the National 

State of Good Repair Assessment estimates that $77.7 billion of the 

assets for the entire transit industry are past their expected period 

of reliable service, which would sort of point to me the need for this 

oversight and safety. I mean, we killed some people here in DC because of the outmoded equipment, and so I am sure elsewhere we 

have problems. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Indeed. We have viewed the safety responsibility 

and the new state of good repair challenges as one in the same in 

many ways. Unfortunately, I have to point out that that $78 billion 

estimate is now a couple of years old and it is probably higher. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks. Ms. Ferro, just two quick questions. One 

is the drug and alcohol clearinghouse, great, but I held a hearing 

a few years ago here where we found that the chain of custody 

doesn’t exist, that there were onsite, you know, coaching to fake up 

your drug tests, the collection points are not monitored in any way, 

and, in fact, are often a point of fraud. 

So have we done anything to deal with the collection sites and 

put a little more integrity in this chain of testing? 

Ms. FERRO. Actually, the MAP–21 provisions incorporated—gave 

us a stronger level of oversight on the collection sites. I can’t cite 

it right now, but I will be happy to follow up with you—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Ms. FERRO [continuing]. Because we share that concern. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. Thank you. And then also, you know, I 

have been on an issue for quite some time now, and we are talking 

about the logbooks and we are talking about safety, that is all 

great, but you know, I know, people in the audience know that a 

lot of truckers are detained past their operating hours at points of 

dropping off their loads. You know, I mean, what are we going to 

do about that? I mean, you know, they have got to move. I mean, 

come on. We know they are going to move, we know they are going 

to violate their operating hours. 

Ms. FERRO. I agree that drivers who are detained absolutely are 

pressured to finish the leg of their journey. They may be detained 

beyond hours of service. They are going to be pressed to complete 

that journey, probably over hours and probably very tired, and 

clearly very stressed. 

14 

We are continuing some of the work that I think you had identified and had GAO do with regard to additional studies on the impact of detention time on driver safety. 

MAP–21 also incorporates a provision called a prohibition on coercion, which doesn’t speak directly to detention time, but does 

speak to the agency’s now new opportunity to take action in cases 

where a driver files a complaint that a shipper or receiver or another party is exercising some sort of leverage or coercion through 

economic withholding or perhaps even physical harm at the point 

of loading, unloading. And so, again, back real quickly on detention, we are completing a study. We expect that to be done in 2015, 

if not sooner. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. And then just quickly anybody on 

what is—what the plans are for 2015? I mean, the chairman referenced it, but I am just curious. Are we going to start slowing 

down in 2014 or 2013? I mean, if you see this cliff coming, you 

know, have you made the States aware of it, because if they have 

a 2-year project where the payout would be in 2015, that might be 

a problem. Either highways or transit, quickly. 

Mr. ROGOFF. All I would add, sir, is that we unfortunately have 

had to grow accustomed to this when trust fund balances have gotten low. And we do have a mechanism to monitor them, and we 

would have to slow payments. What I can’t give you a good fix on 

right now, because we are still a ways out from the end of 2014, 

is whether we are going to have a solvency problem within 2014 

or not. The Transit Account has sort of teetered on both sides of 

the margin, depending on when you ask, but Victor may have other 

insights on this. 

Mr. MENDEZ. Yes, sir. In 2008 I believe we faced the situation 

you are talking about. At that point in time, FHWA did develop a 

process. 

Now, I won’t go through the entire process, but basically at the 

end of the day what happens, is if you don’t have sufficient funds 

in the account, you begin to then delay Federal payments to the 

State DOTs and other recipients. 

Being a former State DOT director, I know on the State level 

what you will be finding is that then you would start looking at 

contracts that you will not issue; you will start delaying projects. 

Critical infrastructure that needs to move forward, you won’t move 

forward with those contracts. 

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

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mendez, I have a 

couple questions for you. In 2005, I authored the NEPA reciprocity 

law that allowed States that equaled or exceeded NEPA to only go 

through one process. They sort of filled the paperwork out, but they 

didn’t have to go through the duplicative process. And only one 

State took advantage of it, California, and they have really done 

well. They have probably saved 17 months off the process time, and 

delivery time about 30 months. 

And I authored the language in Section 1313 of MAP–21 that 

also would have allowed all the States to do it. It is a permanent 

program. I am sad that the Senate didn’t accept our language. We 

15 

don’t have to fill out one piece of paper, but we have to do the duplicative process still, but it allows States with environmental laws 

that equal or exceed NEPA not to have to go through both processes. The original language I authored would have allowed counties and cities to do that, but it was stricken in the Senate. 

But California has done a very good job on the process. But do 

you kind of agree that to avoid the duplicative process would be 

beneficial to all the States? 

Mr. MENDEZ. If you look at MAP–21, you did open up that provision to allow other States to actually participate. So we are looking 

very hard, working with AASHTO and the States to once again 

take a look at that and see how we might be able to encourage 

other States to participate within that provision. 

And it is very true. We have found in California as we looked at 

some of the data that the environmental process they follow has actually been very beneficial. I believe the numbers you quoted are 

pretty accurate, 17 to 18 months’ reduction in the process. So we 

are going to continue to work with the States and see what we can 

do to encourage others to participate. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, if you can do it in California, I believe you can 

probably do it anywhere, because California’s a very tough State on 

the process of environmental review. Do you expect DOT to grant 

the eligible States ability to do this to qualify in the near future? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Oh, absolutely. We will implement the provisions 

as you have mandated. 

Mr. MILLER. And what methods are you using to determine the 

effectiveness of the streamlining regulations and implementing the 

plan? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Well, with regard to the overall streamlining, because you did provide to us various provisions for streamlining the 

environmental process, we have undertaken many—we have implemented a lot of guidance to help the States move forward in that 

regard. 

We also have quite a few rulemaking processes that are underway to help us implement all the provisions for environmental 

streamlining. I have a whole list that I probably could provide to 

you after the fact, but we are working very hard to implement all 

these provisions. 

I can tell you moving a project forward in terms of project delivery, environmental streamlining, has been a very major issue, not 

only for us at FHWA since I have been there, but really for the entire administration. I can tell you as an outgrowth of an Executive 

order we worked with the Transportation Rapid Response Team to 

coordinate with other Federal agencies to move some of these 

projects forward, and we have been very successful. 

Mr. MILLER. It seems like every project that they put out to bid 

comes in under the engineer’s estimates, probably considerably, because people aren’t busy right now and they can deliver projects 

quicker. Is your focus right now on timeline on project delivery? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Absolutely. Since I have been at FHWA, about 31⁄2

years, one of my major priorities has been implementing innovation 

initiatives to help deliver projects in half the time. I believe the 

chairman mentioned it takes about 14 to 15 years to deliver major 

projects. My challenge to the industry has been to cut that in half. 

16 

We have implemented the Every Day Counts initiative to help us 

do that. 

And I think at the larger level, I believe if you listen to President 

Obama talk to every individual Federal agency asking us to cut the 

red tape, that is what we are looking at. 

Mr. MILLER. You briefly mentioned challenges. What do you see 

as the biggest challenge in implementing this process? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Well, I think it is just a matter of getting the industry on board. We are working, by the way, with the private sector and the public sector on a lot of these strategies that we have 

identified to move projects forward. And, you know, we are in a 

fairly conservative industry, so taking new ideas and implementing 

them takes a little bit longer. I think what we have provided at 

FHWA is a venue or a channel, if you will, for all State agencies 

to work with us and deploy these strategies nationwide. 

Mr. MILLER. Freight delivery is huge in my district, because we 

have the ports of Long Beach and L.A. in California. And what do 

you see in your process to ensure we have a solid, well-funded 

freight line plan that comes out of the DOT to the States in the 

near future? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Well, as you are aware, within MAP–21, there is 

a big focus on freight movement in a reliable manner and reducing 

congestion. And, by the way, I was at the Gerald Desmond Bridge 

about 2 months or so ago, so I understand the challenges you face 

there. 

As you are aware, within MAP–21, there are certain provisions 

that we need to implement, things like creating a national freight 

network, and we have that process underway. In fact, we issued a 

notice in early February outlining for everybody what that process 

will be to identify the freight network. 

We also will be looking at other elements within DOT. The Secretary did form the Freight Policy Council. And as was mentioned 

earlier, we are looking to create a National Freight Advisory Committee. And, by the way, we are looking for nominees, and the 

deadline for that is March 21st. So it is important for us to bring 

in stakeholders with the right kind of experience, both public and 

private. And whether it is safety issues or trucking issues, rail 

issues, we need all that at the table to come up with a strategy 

that makes sense for the entire Nation. 

Mr. MILLER. I will have more questions, but the chairman has 

been very generous. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Rahall. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Mendez, 

let me follow up on something I mentioned in my opening statement. You recently issued a memo to division officers expanding 

the current 30-year standing waiver exempting all manufacturing 

products from Buy America. Many in the industry have questioned 

the need for the existing waiver, let alone the need to expand it. 

FHWA claims that the intent of the memo was to clarify that 

miscellaneous items like faucets, door hinges, fittings, clamps, 

washers, nuts and bolts used on Federal highway projects are not 

subject to Buy America. 

17 

Mr. Administrator, I would ask you to look at the images that 

are on the screen. It is my understanding that these items would 

no longer be subject to Buy America under your memo. Now, the 

last time that I was in Lowe’s, if I recall, I could not find anything 

that looked like these items on the shelf, so I don’t see these as 

miscellaneous, off-the-shelf items that should not be subject to Buy 

America, but they would be under your memo. 

Can you explain to me why the FHWA issued this memo and 

why your agency spoke—or who your agency spoke to prior to 

issuing this memo? Did the agency engage manufacturers and 

other stakeholders prior to issuing the memo? 

And then I am also interested in why FHWA thought it was appropriate to make the determination to expand this 30-year-old 

waiver through a memo with no notice and opportunity for comment. 

Mr. MENDEZ. Well, thank you. And I do understand the concern 

that has been out there and certainly has been expressed to us directly by many stakeholders, but I do want to go back to some of 

your comments. The intent genuinely was not to expand or reduce 

what was already in place. What we believed internally was to try 

and provide to all of our offices throughout the Nation—in case you 

are not aware, we have an office in every State—and so we wanted 

to ensure that this waiver for manufactured products was being 

implemented throughout the Nation in a consistent manner. And 

so that was clearly the intent from our standpoint, was internally 

to ensure everybody was doing things consistently. 

And let me point to what we do on a national level, because I 

think I need to put this into context. When it comes to Buy America, nobody has set a higher standard than Secretary LaHood and 

our Deputy Secretary Porcari. Whenever we receive a waiver request, it is very difficult for us to get them approved. I know that, 

our division administrators know that. So waivers are very, very 

minimal. Within our $40 billion program nationwide, I believe in 

2011 we issued six waivers at a cost of $6 million, which if you look 

at percentages, it is way less than one-tenth of a percent that received a waiver. 

I just want to assure you that we are very focused on Buy America, and really our standard has been very high. And on that, I can 

assure you the intent was not to expand the authorities. 

Now, since that time, though, a group has issued or submitted 

a legal action against us on that memo, and so we are working 

with the Department of Justice on that issue to see how we are 

going to deal with that legally. 

Mr. RAHALL. Do you have any input from stakeholders when you 

issue waivers? 

Mr. MENDEZ. You mean on this particular issue? 

Mr. RAHALL. Yes. 

Mr. MENDEZ. No, we did not. Like I said, our intent was really 

strictly to ensure consistency within our operations throughout the 

Nation. 

Mr. RAHALL. All right. Administrator Rogoff, let me turn to you 

real quickly. As a result of the 2010 census, Huntington, West Virginia, Ironton, Ohio, and Ashland, Kentucky, are now part of a single new urbanized area, which has a population just over FTA’s 

18 

threshold of 200,000 for large urbanized areas. There are three 

small transit systems in the region, but they are now each saddled 

with Federal transit rules designed for much larger urban areas. 

One challenge raised by my local transit agency this week in 

Huntington, West Virginia, is that one of the other agencies, the 

Ashland bus system, has refused to negotiate how Federal transit 

dollars are to be divided among the three systems in the region. 

FTA has indicated that until they come to an agreement at the 

local level, all Federal formula funding to the UZA will be held up. 

Does FTA have any process in place to address this situation? 

And I am wondering what recourse does a transit agency have if 

another agency in the UZA refuses to come to the table? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, a couple of things. First, the 200,000 population threshold is not an FTA threshold. It is a threshold in the 

law. So we are limited in our ability in terms of how we must interpret it. The census tells us who is in what urbanized area and who 

is not. I have just been made aware of this problem between Huntington and Ashland. I think in the old days Vicki would have 

called me in a heartbeat, but she didn’t. 

Mr. RAHALL. She is not there anymore. 

Mr. ROGOFF. She is not there anymore. 

Mr. RAHALL. She would have to call from the farm. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Right. But I think more importantly, this needs to 

come to closure by the end of this month. The deadline is March 

27th for them to come to an agreement. 

Now, I am not supposed to intervene in these local discussions; 

however, what I can do is facilitate a conversation, and if I need 

to go out there, I will, and sit everyone down and try to force a resolution, because our focus is on the passengers and whether the 

passengers are being served, and one of the ways that happens is 

by being sure that our dollars can continue to flow so that transit 

agencies can serve them. 

So I will talk to my regional administrator on this, see what the 

state of play is to date. The problem is, as I understand it, the operating cap that would go to Ashland, Kentucky, is not sufficient 

to let them even run their current operations, and there is a lot of 

concern over that. And it is a three-State challenge: it also includes 

Ohio. They need to come to some resolution so the dollars can continue to flow. And we will help facilitate that conversation if we 

don’t see anything coming together by the end of the month. 

Mr. RAHALL. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Representative Southerland. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud of 

Florida’s Department of DOT for delivering, I know, to my office 

last week the MAP–21 performance report almost 3 years early. 

And I am pleased that the report shows that Florida, our roads, 

our bridges are in good shape. We can always strive to do more, 

but overall I am very pleased by what I see in the report, which 

is a requirement of MAP–21. 

Given that today’s hearing is focused on the implementation of 

MAP–21, I am curious, Administrator Mendez and Administrator 

Rogoff, what are you hearing from other States? Are you hearing 

initial reports as far as the conditions of their reports? 

19 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, I would just make the point from the transit 

perspective: we appreciate Florida’s leadership in sort of stepping 

out there. They have stepped out ahead of us, frankly, in that we 

have not yet issued the performance measures that we are charged 

with developing in MAP–21. So, you know, we view the Florida report as a good, informative document where they are saying to us, 

‘‘Well, this is how we look at it in Florida,’’ and that will certainly 

inform our thinking nationally as we develop performance measures for both highways and transit. 

I think, importantly, we have a—and I will be interested in seeing how Florida addressed this question—we have an interesting 

challenge that you all have charged us with—I commend you for 

doing that—and that is that both agencies have a congestion performance measure to come up with, and I think it will be the proof 

that we will come out of our model silos if we come up with the 

identical measure of congestion. That may be a challenge. We have 

been measuring congestion for the FTA New Starts program in a 

variety of ways. FHWA has come at it from a different angle. We 

are going to try and merge these approaches and come up to commonality so all 50 States and the local communities and the local 

transit agencies have one goal to shoot for. 

Mr. MENDEZ. I agree with my colleague. I would add one other 

element here, which is that one thing that I have learned about the 

performance management concept is that what I thought would be 

straightforward really is a very complex issue when you start talking to all the stakeholders. And then like Peter was saying, when 

you look at a transit congestion approach versus a highway approach, what does that look like if you are going to be looking at 

congestion in an overall picture? So it is a very complex issue, and 

we are working on it. I think the States recognize and all the other 

stakeholders recognize the complexity, and we are receiving a lot 

of different ideas. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you very much. A followup question. 

I know the President has mentioned the number of structurally deficient bridges we have around the entire country, and so it is a 

global challenge that we face. But doesn’t MAP–21 require States 

to use the funds they receive to improve performance rather than 

redirecting funds from those States, such as my own State of Florida, that are already demonstrating good performance? I say that 

because Florida has traditionally been penalized for keeping our 

bridges and roads in good condition using State dollars, so we don’t 

just depend on Federal dollars, while some other States may get rewarded because they don’t do some of the usage of their State dollars. So it seems to me to kind of be a weird disincentive to do the 

right thing. How do you interpret MAP–21, as I interpret it regarding those funds? 

Mr. MENDEZ. There are a couple of major programs within MAP– 

21. One is the National Highway Performance Program, which is 

geared toward state of good repair, maintaining the system, or adding capacity, if you choose to do that, or other improvements. There 

is also another program called the Surface Transportation Program, that is STP. That is geared primarily toward state of good 

repair. 

20 

Now, there are some criteria that I don’t have right off the top 

of my mind here. But on the safety aspect, if you meet some of 

those performance measures in safety, you then can actually utilize 

some of that for other purposes. So I don’t really see that as a disincentive or a penalty, if you will. MAP–21 actually provided a lot 

of flexibility to the States and the MPOs. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. All right. OK. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I don’t have anything to add to that, sir. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. That is fine. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Carson. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am particularly interested in working on issues related to intelligent transportation systems. I want to build on the limited language included in MAP– 

21 and see better utilization of smart technologies with our existing 

infrastructure and really begin to implement new technologies. I 

strongly believe that the utilization of intelligent transportation 

technology can improve safety, lower highway fatalities, reduce 

congestion, and help make our transportation system smarter and 

more sustainable. 

Please tell us what your agencies are undertaking at this point 

and the status of this work. Also, tell us about any collaborations 

with non-Federal partners, including educational or research institutions, or corporate partners for that matter, in terms of helping 

move this issue forward. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, Mr. Carson, if you don’t mind, I will start, 

and I guess my colleagues can definitely follow on. Right now the 

Department is actually at a fairly significant point in the Vehicleto-Vehicle Safety Program and the ITS program in general. This 

year the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will be 

making an agency decision on whether to go forward in issuing a 

rule or other action in regards to vehicle-to-vehicle communications, and it really is a landmark moment. We currently right now 

are running a pilot project in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which is going 

to involve 3,000 vehicles which all have the V2V beacons and it is 

actually going very well. We are getting an incredible amount of 

data and results from that. 

And you are absolutely right, the prospects of V2V alone fully integrated in the fleet, our research has shown, it could address up 

to 80 percent of crash scenarios involving unimpaired drivers. That 

is 8–0 percent. But it is really one piece of the entire program. 

Clearly, the other modes are very much involved in being part of 

the ITS project and Administrator Mendez can speak to the work 

that Federal Highway is undergoing for vehicle to infrastructure. 

But in terms of safety and congestion relief and a number of other 

issues, it holds tremendous progress. 

Ms. FERRO. So the area and the use of technology to improve the 

efficiency and safety of the commercial vehicle operating industry 

or sector has been extremely valuable, tying into the initiatives 

that Dave Strickland just walked through. The primary area of 

funding to support States in the area of intelligent vehicle implementation is called the Commercial Vehicle Information Systems 

21 

Network grant. It is a grant program through the FMCSA and it 

supports States’ efforts to implement core technologies that provide 

for both electronic transaction processing, but also electronic bypass capability for carriers that demonstrate a level of safety that, 

as I spoke of before, is maintaining the standards expected under 

national law. 

Just last year, in fact, Indiana launched a great event demonstrating a partnership between Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio with 

the use of these smart roadside technologies and demonstrating 

how well it works together with States and the use of some of the 

newest, to be sure that law enforcement can pull over the highest 

risk carriers—that is the efficiency piece—both checking State credentials, Federal credentials, and on-board status. So it is an outstanding approach. Thank you. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I would add, Mr. Carson, that there are transit 

buses also involved in that V2V project out in Ann Arbor, and it 

captures an opportunity to look at the surface transportation system as a system and to be able to give, for example, a passenger— 

if you have a common operating picture of how the system is working—bus plus rail plus the streets in a car. Eventually we will be 

able to pick up a smartphone and be told what is the fastest way 

I can get there using a variety of options, and especially using options like bus rapid transit, which is being contemplated for Indianapolis at the current time. So there is great opportunity there. 

As it is right now, the ability to see when the next bus and the 

next train are coming from the PDA has not only been a great advent for convenience for the passenger; it has actually enabled 

transit agencies—we don’t talk about this much—to run less frequent service without a lot of complaint because the passenger 

knows when the bus is going to be there, as opposed to needing 

very short headways to provide reliability. 

Go ahead, Victor. 

Mr. MENDEZ. One of the items we need to talk about, it is one 

of my favorite topics, is innovation through technology. And right 

now, through our research agency, RITA, a lot of research is underway through a joint program office to look at vehicle-to-vehicle 

communication and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication and to 

improve safety, reduce congestion, and really improve the quality 

of life. So a lot of research in that arena is underway. I know they 

are engaged with the auto manufacturing companies, along with 

other private sector companies that are out there that deal with 

this kind of technology. 

One other element that we are looking at specifically within 

FHWA, again, through our innovation initiative, is new concepts to 

help us manage traffic better, things like active traffic management concepts where you can better time your signals on major arterials. Those kinds of ideas are being deployed throughout the Nation as well. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Ribble. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the 

panel for spending some time with us today. 

22 

Administrator Mendez, just a quick question on the truck weight 

study required by MAP–21. MAP–21 specifically references a 

97,000-pound vehicle with six axles. However, it is important to 

note that the legislation we debated last year in this committee allowed the States the option of using the vehicles instead of mandating them. Under this State option approach, a State could decide to not allow those vehicles on a given stretch of road while allowing them on others. Different States might have varying infrastructure needs and particularly compositions of industries. So 

freight transportation needs vary widely across the States. 

I would be concerned if the study ends up looking at this issue 

as a mandate, and I am hopeful that DOT will recognize that key 

distinction. I am interested in any comments you might have on 

this given that this committee will rely heavily on that study in the 

next highway bill debate. 

Mr. MENDEZ. Well, let me give you a rundown on the status of 

the truck size and weight study because I know there is a lot of 

interest in that. It is a big issue throughout the entire Nation. It 

is very important for us at the Federal level as well. We have the 

study pretty much underway. We have made a lot of effort to make 

that happen. As you mentioned, within the study some of the 

things we are going to be looking at are six-axle configurations, 

longer combination vehicles, and the 97,000 pound issues. But 

what we have to do and what we are doing here is to provide to 

all of you a data-driven objective analysis looking at issues that 

have to be balanced, things like highway safety, impact on infrastructure, the transportation of goods throughout the Nation in a 

safe manner, and then looking at how that plays out economically 

in terms of vehicle configuration. 

We are in the process of hiring a consultant to help us move 

through the study itself, and we are going to be looking at overweight issues, both overweight and over dimension, both individually and then in combination to see what the overall impacts 

would be when you come up with our recommendations. So we are 

also going to be taking a lot of input from stakeholders to help us 

get to a final conclusion. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Are you including the impact on the environment 

with having fewer vehicles on the road and things like that as 

well? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Absolutely. And I know one of the concerns that I 

have heard from some Members here, is what is going to happen 

not only in the rural areas, but what about the urban areas and 

what kind of impact do we have on urban areas, because we tend 

to look at freight maybe more in terms of getting from long distances, if you will. So we are very focused on this, and we will get 

you a report that is going to be objective and data-driven. 

Mr. RIBBLE. I appreciate that, and thank you for that. 

Administrator Ferro, one of the concerns I hear frequently from 

the motor carrier industry is the barriers to entry, as well as finding adequate number of drivers in a growing economy, which gives 

me a little bit of pause. In your framework, your strategic plan, you 

State in your testimony that you used three core principles, and 

two of them I am fully on board with you on. The third one I have 

some concerns about. It is raising the bar to enter the motor carrier 

23 

industry. Raising the bar would imply there was a bar in a wrong 

place. So the previous bar was X and the new bar is Y. Could you 

tell me what the changes were between the two? 

Ms. FERRO. Absolutely. The first bar of all is at point of entry 

when a carrier applies for and receives their authority to operate 

across the United States in interstate commerce. MAP–21 itself 

sets a stronger bar to come into the industry. And one of the weakest points that we have had for many years is that it is too easy 

today, if the agency or State enforcement entity takes action 

against a carrier, identifies where that carrier is perhaps presenting an imminent hazard and makes efforts to shut them down, 

they can slip through and reapply for authority and in many cases 

get their authority, stick extra DOT numbers in their back pocket, 

and pull them out as needed. 

That is the bar that is way too low today. So it is that point of 

entry. MAP–21 incorporates a knowledge-testing requirement prior 

to obtaining authority that we are building into the process; again, 

sort of just to tighten that net, to ensure that those who are coming 

into the industry understand the requirements. 

And if I could just touch briefly, the motor carrier industry is 

small business America. And I am very proud to be part of the 

agency that influences the safe operation of the industry. We regulate over 500,000 companies and 85 percent of those have 5 trucks 

or fewer. And it is a very important that we continue to support 

that sort of an operating environment. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Yeah, and my concern, quite frankly, is that, not so 

much for those that were a bad actor trying to circle back around 

and get back in, but that new young entrepreneur trying to create 

something good for their community, their State and family, quite 

frankly, that we don’t get the bar to a place that would make it 

so difficult that they can’t get in. And that is just a caution I would 

give you. Thank you very much for being here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

panel for being here today and for your testimony. Everything we 

have talked about today costs money, everything. Everything you 

do costs money, from safety to repair to construction. Yet we are 

in the middle of a sequester. We are about to debate a CR that cuts 

back funding. We probably are looking at a sequester next year. We 

have a trust fund that is running out of money. And yet it has been 

very difficult for me, or anyone else that I am aware of, to get detailed information as to what these actions have meant, specifically. And to be perfectly honest, everybody likes to do different 

things. I am not one who likes to throw around hundreds of millions of dollars or billions of dollars because it doesn’t mean much 

to my constituents. They are kind of used to those numbers and it 

just flows over their head. For me it is much more interesting, 

when I go to my constituents, I talk about specific projects. This 

is what we want to do, or this is what we are trying to do. 

I guess what I would like to hear from you, especially Mr. Rogoff 

and Mr. Mendez, are you preparing to specifically list, hopefully by 

congressional district, if not maybe by State, specific things that 

24 

you will not be able to do because of these items? And actually I 

am not looking for philosophical statements. That is our job. But, 

Mr. Rogoff, in specific, in my district transit is the big thing. You 

know, I am pushing very hard for at least one, actually several 

major transit projects. They require New Starts funding. And it is 

one thing to get through all the hoops and bells and whistles to get 

it there and it is another thing to get the State to have its money. 

We are having those arguments as well. But none of it means anything if New Starts gets defunded, or you can’t give this particular 

New Starts project to go ahead because you don’t have the funding. 

And the same would be with you, Mr. Mendez, on other issues. 

And I am not today, because I know that you are still in the middle of doing this, are you preparing to be able to give us specific 

lists of specific projects that have to be cut because of these different items? I would like to know the difference between sequester 

and trust fund issues. They are separate issues. But yet, they are 

important issues. What I am looking for is the ability to have an 

honest discussion with not just my colleagues, but also my constituents, to tell them the truth. And the truth is, if you want this 

project, we have to come up with this amount of money. And without this amount of money, we can’t have the project. 

I guess, Mr. Rogoff, I will start with you, because transit is so 

important to my district. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Capuano, and let me 

say that this is not hard when it comes to the New Starts program 

to identify the precise projects that we are going to have to cut, because we have signed full-funding grant agreements that have a 

specified dollar amount for each one of them. These are grant 

agreements that we put before this committee for 60 days in review. Since MAP–21 it is 30 days of review. And we presented to 

the committee precisely what the funding increment would be for 

each year. We have the list of these commitments we signed up for 

in 2013, and I can’t afford it now as a result of the sequester. And 

I have got the list in front of me, and I will be happy to put it in 

the record at the appropriate time. 

[The information follows:] 

25 


Insert offset folio 5 here 79896.005
26 


Insert offset folio 6 here 79896.006
27 

Mr. CAPUANO. And again, the sequester is only the beginning. 

We may have another one next year. We have a trust fund issue. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, that is right, and that raises some very troubling issues for us because, let’s understand, the President’s budget 

for this particular program is some $400 million higher than what 

the post-sequester level is going to be. And we asked for those increased funds precisely because we knew the pipeline was expanding and we have more projects seeking entry into the program like 

the Green Line Extension in Massachusetts, and if we can’t meet 

the commitments to the projects we have already signed up, it does 

not bode well for the projects that want to get in the program in 

the future. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I look forward to getting those lists. 

Mr. Mendez. 

Mr. MENDEZ. Yes. Just to be clear, under the sequester, as we 

sit here today, the Highway Account has been somewhat walled off, 

but there are some impacts, and let me run through that. Under 

the National Highway Performance Program, out of an approximately $40 billion program over 2 years, that portion of the Highway Account will be reduced by approximately $32 million in fiscal 

year 2013. And sometime here in the next month or so, we will go 

back to the States and identify State by State how we are going 

to reduce that $32 million. Now, $32 million is a lot of money, so 

we will convey that information and obviously, we will share that 

with you. 

It is also important for me to mention that the Emergency Relief 

Program is going to be reduced by approximately $106 million. 

What that really means is, because we do have a balance in the 

Emergency Relief Program, that means that for any future events 

that may occur in the next few months, we will not be able to expend. We will have to subtract $106 million from the account. We 

will have less. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Again, I want to be clear. I am asking more than 

just sequester. We have a trust fund issue. We have a CR issue. 

We have another sequester looming next year. It just doesn’t seem 

to stop. And I don’t want people to think that this is a one-time 

thing. This is a rolling problem that will require updates as we go 

along. And the highway program is not walled off of the CR. It is 

not walled off of the trust fund issue. 

Mr. ROGOFF. And in fact the sequester next year, you know, 

would be a higher percentage than we are being hit for this year. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to somewhat follow up on that, then I have another question. You know, I hear the 

fact that we hear sequester all the time. It has affected a lot of people. But I would say to all of you, I am a small business owner. 

I still have a business. And the private sector has had to cut out 

a lot more than 2 percent to survive these last 4 years. And I think 

it is important that, as was said earlier, you are going to have to 

have a plan that takes us not only for this year, next year, and so 

forth, to where you cut expenses, and at the same time not hindering the customer. 

28 

We hear that we are not going to be able to pay certain payments on time, this and that. I mean, do you have a plan in your 

mind that you are going to take care of the customer first as opposed to taking care of maybe reduction of people in your agency 

or whatever? I mean, the customer comes first, and there is not 

going to be this great amount of cashflow coming through as you 

are beginning to see. And, you know, kind of what is your plan 

with that? I mean, you are having to live like the private sector has 

to live right now. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, I will just speak for transit. There is no question. We have identified in terms of the funding reductions that we 

are taking on the administrative front that we are doing our 

damnedest to avoid any direct impact on services to the public. But 

the bottom line is, I can’t furlough staff for a number of days that 

are providing those services and maintain that the service is going 

to be the same. We are obviously not attending conferences. We are 

not doing discretionary visits, but this committee charges us with 

doing oversight of the grant money you give us, and our ability to 

go out and do oversight of individual projects to make sure the Federal funds are being administered correctly is directly undermined 

by our inability to travel. 

Mr. MENDEZ. We are going to be facing the exact same issue, and 

I would just lay this out for all of you. It is not a complaint, by 

the way, it is just a reality check here. Even if we look at MAP– 

21, for example, the added burden that we have to assume in terms 

of issuing additional rulemakings, additional reports to Congress, 

the oversight that Peter has mentioned, at some point all that will 

come to a head, and we will have to deal with that accordingly. 

And so, part of our charge on the oversight perspective is to ensure 

that the Federal funds are being used accordingly and that we are 

protecting the taxpayer dollars. So it is just something we have to 

look at very closely, and we will continue to do that. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I appreciate that. I just want to emphasize 

that the private sector is having to do this now. It is getting in 

everybody’s lap. And the other thing real quick, separate, we talked 

earlier about any ideas you might have to help create more funding 

to supply the Highway Trust Fund. Let me ask you a question. You 

are familiar with the CAFE standards. Do you think if we did away 

with the CAFE standards that would be a good source of income 

to the Highway Trust Fund? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, in terms of the CAFE standards, what 

happens is, when there is a noncompliance that automakers will 

pay a penalty. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am talking about doing away with the CAFE 

standards so there is no penalty. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, in terms of those funds don’t go to the 

Highway Trust Fund. Those particular penalties go to the General 

Fund, and those numbers are, frankly, very, very small in terms 

of the overall penalties that the automakers pay every year. They 

are very small. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, the 18.4 cents goes in the Highway Trust 

Fund. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. OK, you are talking about the entire, the fuel 

tax. That is not CAFE, so I will defer. 

29 

Mr. WILLIAMS. The CAFE requirements of the auto manufacturers and the truckings are to meet a certain standard. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I think what Mr. Williams may be putting forward 

is, if we repeal the CAFE standards, would the American public 

consume more fuel and thus put more revenue in the Highway 

Trust Fund? Obviously, sir, the President has been very outspoken 

on our need to reduce our dependence on foreign fuel—foreign oil— 

and fuel consumption. That is an administration goal. So repealing 

CAFE is not anything on our—— 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, the President and I disagree. 

Mr. ROGOFF. OK, very well. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. Appreciate it. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. And also to follow up, as well, sir, the natural 

momentum of the fleet beyond the CAFE standards do have an influence, that every year the actual minimum is actually—these 

people are making the market decision to buy more efficient vehicles on their own regardless of CAFE. So I think in terms of limiting the CAFE standards, the existing fleet and the momentum of 

actually the market signals from, you know, fuel costs right now, 

I would have to question that theory if you actually eliminated the 

standards whether you would have any type of a—— 

Mr. WILLIAMS. The private sector will make that decision. Thank 

you. Appreciate it. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Ms. Frankel. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, panel. A question, to change the subject a little bit. 

I am from south Florida. We have a very high number of seniors 

and folks with disabilities. Our paratransit ridership for Palm Tran 

and Broward Transit is averaging over 3,000 trips per day and far 

exceeds the national average for the transit system of our size. And 

our local agencies are concerned that that is not recognized. I guess 

is there a formula or is there some way that the Congress can address this situation so that they could get their fair share of money. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, Ms. Frankel, there is a formula, and ridership 

of the system calculates into that formula. It may not be as immediately sensitive to that ridership year to year as some people may 

feel is appropriate—it may not reflect as quickly the changes in ridership. We just had implemented the new census, and it had some 

very dynamic changes in the allocation of funds. 

Ms. FRANKEL. But do you take into account the elderly, the disabled that will use a more expensive type of transit? 

Mr. ROGOFF. The formula is somewhat sensitive to costs, and 

paratransit trips, if that is what you are referring to, ma’am, are 

calculated in that. Here again, I think it is fair to say it is in the 

formula, but is it dollar for dollar? I don’t think you could make 

that argument because the formula, like most formulas that come 

forward from consensus legislation, is sort of a hybrid of multiple 

factors. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Well, let me just talk about, they tell me that it costs $26 an hour to operate a paratransit service, but they receive 

$3. Does that represent the type of formula around the country? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, paratransit has been an increasingly costly 

challenge to transit agencies all across the country, and I am quite 

30 

sure that an area that is rich with elderly citizens would be even 

more challenged. But it is a civil right that our disabled and senior 

citizens have. You know, the solution to that is a statutory formula 

change. And the solution to that would also be additional funding 

into the program consistent with some of the numbers that the 

President has requested in recent years. 

Ms. FRANKEL. So what type of formula change could we implement? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, like I said, the formula is somewhat sensitive 

to costs in paratransit trips. I cannot say that it necessarily is dollar-for-dollar sensitive to the considerably higher costs that a paratransit trip costs versus a standard trip. And that would have to 

be statutorily put into the formula. 

Ms. FRANKEL. OK, thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Perry. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, ladies and gentlemen, appreciate your testimony and being 

here today. 

My question, at least initially, Mr. Mendez, regarding the MAP– 

21 requirements for published rulemaking, I noticed in your testimony, you said that you complied with the declarations for emergency. But I am wondering about the NEPA requirements and the 

other, the right-of-way, and the $5 million and less standards, and 

when those are going to be published, if you know; if you know also 

what new categorical exclusions that you plan to propose. 

Mr. MENDEZ. We have a lot of activity underway, a lot of items 

underway. I think we have done really good work as a Department. 

As I mentioned, we have had extensive, extensive outreach to 

stakeholders in moving all of the rulemakings and reports and everything else forward. 

Specific to your question, on the right-of-way issue, and the 

projects with limited Federal assistance, we did issue a proposed 

rulemaking about 2 or 3 weeks ago, so that is out there. We are 

soliciting comment, as you are aware. We will take all comments 

and then we will issue a final rule sometime, I believe, early next 

year. 

Let’s see. You asked about one other. What was the other one? 

Mr. PERRY. Well, that was, it was right-of-way, and then on the 

projects below $5 million. 

Mr. MENDEZ. Yeah, so that is out. That was out a couple of 

weeks ago. 

Mr. PERRY. It is already out? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Not the final, just for comments. 

Mr. PERRY. For comments. We have got 30 or 60 days for comment? 

Mr. MENDEZ. I don’t know that off the top. 

Mr. PERRY. And so after that, you said early next year for the 

right-of-way. I mean, that is a long time. 

Mr. MENDEZ. I just heard 60-day comment period, by the way. 

Mr. PERRY. OK, 60-day comment period. We are in March. 

Mr. MENDEZ. Right. 

31 

Mr. PERRY. So we are saying it is going to take until next year 

until folks. I mean, I thought the requirement was to have the 

rulemaking out by, I thought it was the end of February. 

Mr. MENDEZ. Yeah, we met that deadline for the notice of proposed rulemaking. We have met that deadline as of 2 weeks ago. 

Mr. PERRY. Just the notice that you had to—— 

Mr. MENDEZ. Yes. 

Mr. PERRY. So the rulemaking itself is not required. What is the 

deadline for the rulemaking itself? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Can I get back to you on that? 

Mr. PERRY. Sure. 

[The information follows:] 

Section 1317 of MAP–21 requires the Secretary to establish a categorical exclusion for projects of limited Federal 

assistance, and requires promulgation of a regulation to 

carry out this provision by February 28, 2013. FHWA met 

this statutory deadline by issuing a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) by that date. FHWA is currently soliciting comments through the NPRM. The comment period 

for this rulemaking closes on April 29, 2013. We will work 

expeditiously to review and consider all comments, and coordinate with all appropriate Federal agencies before 

issuing a final rule. 

Mr. MENDEZ. Because I know we are on track for almost all of 

the rulemakings, I do know that. And you know, we have the 

schedule. I just off the top don’t have it. 

Mr. PERRY. OK, because I think that is important for folks, I am 

sure folks in the room that are interested in knowing where they 

stand. 

Let me ask you this: Do you know the Administration’s position? 

I know MAP–21 calls for $5 million and below, but, you know, you 

don’t get much for $5 million. Highway projects, road projects are 

exceptionally expensive for various reasons. Is there any interest in 

moving that number up for the NEPA requirements and the exclusions? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Well, I think what we need to do right now is to 

focus on what we currently have on hand, the $5 million, see how 

that works out. You know, we might hear that as part of the comments we need to take that into consideration. Right now, I am not 

aware that anyone has made those kinds of comments, but I would 

suggest we need to finalize this one before we start contemplating 

some other threshold. 

Mr. PERRY. Sure seems like it takes a long time, a 60-day comment and then wait until next year. We need it right now, right? 

I come from Pennsylvania. We know the condition of roads and 

bridges, and to wait another year to kind of get these exclusions 

is a bit long, I would think. 

This is probably off the beaten path, certainly with MAP–21, just 

interested in if the Administration has a position on the CARB 

standards. To me it is a disincentive for alternative fuel and people 

modifying their vehicles to alternative fuels. We do a lot of gas in 

Pennsylvania, Marcellus gas, and Utica shale gas, and it is a disVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:12 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\3-14-1~1\79896.TXT JEAN
32 

incentive for people to use fuel-efficient vehicles that are also 100 

percent more clean for the environment regarding gasoline or diesel 

utilization. Does the Administration have a position on that? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I am not sure you have got the right people here. 

You might want to talk to the Department of Energy on this. 

Mr. PERRY. This is not carbon, CARB, the California Air Resources Board standards that States adopt. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Oh. I have not heard us take a position as it relates 

to the merit of California’s standard. We certainly haven’t proposed 

to preempt it. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. 

All right. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Ms. Hahn. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

Thank you, panel, for staying around. You know, during the debate for MAP–21, I was following two pieces of the debate very 

closely, freight policy and the America Fast Forward. I represent 

the Port of Los Angeles, and it was great, Victor, to have you out 

there at the Port of Long Beach as we were dedicating the 

groundbreaking of the Gerald Desmond Bridge, which is a huge 

piece of our goods movement projects. This is the largest port complex in the country. I have also cofounded a Port Caucus with 

Congressmember Ted Poe from Texas so we can highlight the importance of our ports as it relates to goods movement in this country. And I know that unless we develop an effective national freight 

policy, we cannot move our goods efficiently and be globally competitive. 

One example I like to talk about is that goods that leave the Port 

of Los Angeles take 48 hours to arrive in Chicago and then another 

30 hours to travel across the city. And I think that means higher 

costs for our consumers. It is more congestion, more pollution, less 

jobs. And so I think a national freight policy, particularly that includes good grade separation across this country, is critical to us 

being competitive in the future. 

The other thing I really support is America Fast Forward and 

that being in the TIFIA, a provision in the TIFIA. And, you know, 

in Los Angeles, while there is so much talk about not raising taxes, 

in Los Angeles, in the county, we voted to tax ourselves to pay for, 

specifically, for transportation projects. And our idea was to use 

these funds, this revenue stream to pay back Federal loans for 

transportation projects in 10 years rather than 30. And now, with 

the provision in TIFIA, the entire Nation can have this kind of 

Federal assistance to move their transportation projects forward. 

So I know it is getting late. My two questions would be, you 

know, do you see more local governments, more cities, counties, 

States using this idea of providing the leverage either through tax 

increases or the private sector to leverage these kinds of loans for 

transportation projects? If not, how can we encourage, you know, 

local governments to really follow the example of Los Angeles? 

You know, we could have built these projects in 30 years and 

paid ourselves back with the revenue stream, but we thought it 

was better for the economy, better for the projects, better for putting people back to work if we could build these projects in 10 

33 

years and then repay the Federal Government with the revenue 

stream in 30 years. So we think that is a model that really will 

work as America Fast Forward, and what can you do to encourage, 

you know, other municipalities across the country to do something 

similar? 

And the other thing, if you could just touch on this, our national 

freight policy. And I know, Victor, you talked a little bit about. And 

I know I have nominated someone to be on this advisory council. 

How is this plan going to be developed, you know, in light of sequestration and other funding cuts? Are we going to have money 

to develop the plan, implement a freight policy in this country? 

How do you see that going? Because I really believe that is going 

to be key to us putting people back to work, being competitive, 

really working with not only our imports into this country, but I 

see a national freight policy as really being the backbone of exporting small businesses’, you know, services and goods. 

So just those two things, if you could touch on the idea of America Fast Forward and the idea of are we really going to get a national freight policy and how are we going to implement it? 

Thanks. 

Mr. MENDEZ. Let me talk about the national freight policy and 

how is that going to work. There are a lot of components to that. 

It is going to be very complex. At the same time, we understand 

and recognize the importance of having the resources to actually 

execute a program. 

I will tell you that I think one of the things that we have done 

pretty well is utilizing technology, Webinars and teleconferences 

and such to do the outreach throughout the Nation. I have a little 

note here that says we did a National Online Dialogue on some of 

the freight issues. We had, I believe, over 8,000 people on that online dialogue, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. 

And throughout the Nation you are going to continue to see it. 

And we see it just within our own operations. Instead of going 

to a training session, we now do a lot on teleconferences just within 

our own operating budget. So I think the use of technology is going 

to help us get there, given that we have limited resources. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I will speak briefly on the topic of America Fast 

Forward. We obviously recognize the leadership that Los Angeles 

has exhibited in this area, and the increase in funding in TIFIA 

under MAP–21 is certainly a great opportunity to, as you said, 

build a whole lot of projects that would have taken 30 years perhaps as soon as 10. 

Just earlier this week—you asked what could we do to better effectuate these things—one of the things this initiative has done is 

really brought the TIFIA program and the modes together. So, for 

example, the Regional Connector and the Westside Subway in Los 

Angeles, which are two projects that want to come in for TIFIA 

funding, will also use FTA New Starts funds. And we were able to 

provide joint guidance between the Acting Chief Financial Officer 

of the Department Sylvia Garcia and myself to Art Leahy at the 

LACMTA telling him precisely what steps need to be followed for 

both their process and our process to get them to the finish line. 

Now, I have to put out a word of caution as I did earlier in the 

hearing. The sequester against the New Starts program really is 

34 

starting to call into question our ability to admit new projects into 

the program because we can’t fund the commitments we have already made. But with that caveat, we are working together with 

the TIFIA funding and the New Starts financial plan together to 

move things forward more rapidly. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Rice. 

Mr. RICE. Thank you. Is this thing on? Test, test. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

And thank you, members of the panel, for being here today. I 

know you have a tough job sitting here getting grilled, but, you 

know, I think that highway funding is incredibly critical infrastructure. Funding is incredibly critical. I believe that it is different 

than spending and that it is something we get a return on. I agree 

with the comments that Mr. DeFazio had earlier that we are being 

left behind in the world, we are becoming less and less competitive, 

and I worry about that. I think we have to invest in our infrastructure because American competitiveness, American business, middle-class jobs, and our entire economy are at stake. 

And I believe we are our own worst enemy. I think with overregulation and the cost and the delay that results that we prevent 

ourselves from being competitive. We are strangling ourselves. 

Bloated and inefficient Federal bureaucracy stifles progress. These 

processes dramatically increase cost and time for infrastructure delivery. And more and more middle-class families lose their jobs to 

our competitors overseas. A business that purposefully makes itself 

uncompetitive will not long survive. 

Mr. Mendez, you said it takes approximately 15 years, earlier, to 

deliver a major project. How do you define what a major project is? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Well, you can look throughout the country and 

probably talk to—— 

Mr. RICE. Is there a dollar amount? Is there a length of miles? 

What is a major project? 

Mr. MENDEZ. No, I think the dialogue that we have had has been 

a general discussion throughout the Nation about major projects 

that pretty much every State needs to move forward, and on major 

infrastructure it takes a long time. 

Mr. RICE. The Highway Trust Funds that we are concerned 

about, and the trust fund being depleted, are those funds used for 

anything other than highways? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Well, the Highway Trust Fund itself does have a 

Highway Account and a Mass Transit Account and some other components, so not everything is geared toward investment directly in 

highways. 

Mr. RICE. What percentage is used, of the Highway Trust Fund, 

what percentage is used for highway construction? 

Mr. MENDEZ. I believe it is an 80–20 breakout in terms of Federal share. 

Mr. RICE. OK. And a lot of that money just goes back to the 

States, right? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Yes. 

Mr. RICE. What percentage of it goes back to the States? 

35 

Mr. MENDEZ. I want to say close to 94 percent goes directly, 

maybe even higher than that. 

Mr. RICE. Well, how is the construction of Federal highways 

funded then? If it is not funded out of the Highway Trust Fund, 

how is it funded? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Well, let met clarify my statement. The majority 

goes back to the States. But, we also have a Federal lands program 

where we do invest in our national parks, and Federal lands. And 

so there is a portion that goes to that as well. 

Mr. RICE. What percentage? So you are saying we are buying 

land for national parks out of the Highway Trust Fund? 

Mr. MENDEZ. No, sir. We are improving access to Federal lands. 

The roads within national parks are also improved. And so those 

are the investments that we make within those programs. 

Mr. RICE. Are we building interstate highway projects right now? 

Mr. MENDEZ. I don’t believe we have anything underway. I do 

know that there are some plans in various States for adding interstate miles. 

Mr. RICE. All right. So when you build an interstate highway in 

a given State, is that included in your numbers when you say that 

the funds are distributed to the State? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RICE. OK. I read recently that South Carolina over the last 

50 years has been a donor State, that 93 cents on the dollar that 

they have put in has come back, where most every other State, I 

think there were six donor States, most every other State has received pretty much dollar-for-dollar what they put in. Is that still 

true? 

Mr. MENDEZ. I don’t believe so. As you are aware, I think in the 

last 5 years, from 2008 to the current year, the Highway Trust 

Fund has been bailed out by the General Fund to the tune of $54 

billion. So I think if you looked at every State and looked at their 

return on their original investment, I don’t believe there are any 

donor States. 

Mr. ROGOFF. My understanding, Mr. Rice, there hasn’t been a 

donor State since 2010. 

Mr. RICE. Two years ago. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, we are in 2013 now and headed into 2014. 

But yes, sir. 

Mr. RICE. OK. All right. You say current receipts on the Highway 

Trust Fund cover about 60 percent of current funding levels. Do we 

have a percentage of Highway Trust Funds that are spent on these 

environmental regulations and other regulatory compliance? Can 

you break that out, how much of that money is spent on satisfying 

these bureaucratic requirements? 

Mr. MENDEZ. I don’t have that with me. I think we have probably 

come up with some ballpark figures. 

Mr. RICE. I sure would like to know that. I mean, is the actual 

cost of building the road, you know, is that 80 percent of what is 

spent out of the Highway Trust Fund? Are we spending, 20 or 30 

or 40 percent of our money on these regulatory requirements? 

Mr. MENDEZ. I will have to get that information for you. 

[The information follows:] 

36 

The FHWA does not have any internal reports or data regarding the amount of expenditures from the Highway 

Trust Fund for regulatory requirements. However, the following reports may be helpful to provide general information regarding regulatory costs associated with highway 

projects: 

• U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO–09–36, FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS: FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR

HIGHWAYS MAY INFLUENCE FUNDING DECISIONS AND

CREATE CHALLENGES, BUT BENEFITS AND COSTS ARE

NOT TRACKED (2009), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/290/284235.pdf. This report identifies the types of 

costs and benefits associated with four Federal-aid highway regulatory requirements: NEPA, the Davis-Bacon 

prevailing wage requirement, the DBE program, and the 

Buy America program. 

• U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO–13–193R, 

HIGHWAY TRUST FUND OBLIGATIONS: FISCAL YEARS

2009–2011 (2013), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651315.pdf. This report details activities funded 

from the Highway Trust Fund, including for purposes 

other than construction or maintenance of highways and 

bridges. The report identifies the non-highway Trust 

Fund money that goes to the Federal Transit Administration, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Within the Federal Highway Administration, the 

report separates funding into three categories: highway 

and bridge construction and maintenance; transportation 

enhancements; and other purposes (such as safety, debt 

service and planning activities). 

Mr. MENDEZ. But just from my experience, I don’t know if you 

were here when I mentioned, I used to be a State DOT director. 

Mr. RICE. Right. 

Mr. MENDEZ. I believe the actual investment in actual infrastructure is somewhere in the 90-percent range, but we will get that information for you. 

Mr. RICE. OK, thank you. Are there any studies that have been 

done on the economic cost in jobs and tax receipts of delaying 

projects for 5 and 10 years to comply with all these regulatory requirements? 

Mr. MENDEZ. I don’t believe we have any within FHWA. I have 

got to believe somewhere in the industry people have done these 

kinds of analysis. 

Mr. RICE. OK, can you help me find those? 

Mr. MENDEZ. We will help you out. 

[The information follows:] 

The FHWA does not have any internal studies or data on 

the economic cost in jobs and tax receipts of highway construction delays due to regulatory requirements. In addition, we were not able to locate any such reports amongst 

37 

other stakeholders at the State and local level or within 

private industry. 

Mr. RICE. I appreciate it. Now, it says that MAP–21 has a goal 

of 4 years for an environmental review. How long will it take to 

put that in process? I know I heard Mr. Perry asking you earlier 

about what your progress was. I mean, is it going to be years before we can get that in place, months? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Off the top, I don’t have the regulatory deadline, 

but like I said, there are so many rulemakings we have to undertake under MAP–21. We are on target for almost all of them, so 

I can get that information to you specifically on that one. I just 

don’t have it here in front of me. 

[The information follows:] 

38 


Insert offset folio 7 here 79896.007
39 

Mr. RICE. We need rules to enforce the rules that put in place 

more rules. 

Mr. PETRI. Yeah. 

Mr. RICE. And I think we are getting back to the source of how 

we are strangling ourselves and stifling our economy, and forcing 

American jobs overseas. 

I thank you, Mr. Petri. I know I am over my time. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Michaud. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having 

this hearing. This question is for Administrator Mendez. 

Section 32801 of MAP–21 authorizes DOT to conduct a comprehensive truck size and weight limit to commence no later than 

45 days after MAP–21’s enactment and to be completed no later 

than 2 years after that, the date the study is commenced. Can you 

tell me if the study will be completed by August of 2014, 2 years 

after the start date, as required by MAP–21. 

Mr. MENDEZ. Our target for completion of that study is the statutory deadline November of 2014. Now, we are working very hard 

to get that done as soon as possible. As I mentioned earlier, that 

is a very complex issue, as you are aware, and I know you have 

a very direct interest in that. We are in the process of hiring a consultant to help with us the study itself; there are a lot of elements 

that need to be balanced between safety and economic issues and 

infrastructure issues, as you are aware. 

I know we have shared some information, specifically with your 

office, that indicated we had started the study in August of last 

year. I think that was an error, and I do apologize. What happened 

last year in August is that the Secretary created the Freight Policy 

Council, and I think that may have been misinterpreted as we have 

started this specific study. That was just part of the process to get 

ourselves geared up to implement as a Department, multimodally, 

the overall freight issues within MAP–21. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Yeah. Well, actually my office was also told last 

year that Federal Highway was expected to have a consultant in 

place and the technical work underway at the end of, you know, 

2012. And what you are telling me today is you haven’t even picked 

a consultant yet. So that is really concerning. 

And I believe that part of the problem in the delay and the reason why the delay in the study was due to Federal Highway revising its solicitation for consultant services in order to increase the 

number of vehicle configurations to be studied, including various 

longer combination vehicles. These vehicles were not statutorily required under MAP–21. What was required under MAP–21 was for 

Federal Highway to specifically study six-axle trucks. 

I, along with my colleagues on this committee, have introduced 

legislation that would give States the option of permitting six-axle, 

97,000-pound trucks on their interstates, the option to do that. The 

intent of including this specific configuration in the study was to 

help inform Congress and the States of our proposal and the impact of the benefits of six-axle trucks. 

Giving that it appears that Federal Highway is nearly, well, 3- 

plus months behind in schedule, including one delay to add additional vehicle configuration that was not, I repeat not, included in 

40 

any legislation before Congress, I would encourage Federal Highway to provide the study that was required and asked for by Congress, the 97,000 pounds, six axle before the deadline, so we might 

be able to deal with that issue as we deal with the next highway 

reauthorization. 

So since the department went above and beyond what the law required, are you going to be able to provide this committee with 

what we asked for, the 97,000 pounds, six axle, so we might be able 

to include something in the highway reauthorization. Any comment 

on that, what was specifically required of Federal Highway? Can 

you provide us with that specific study? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Well, we are moving the study forward and we are 

going to move it as fast as we can, and, we are going to do the best 

that we can. We will provide to you a data-driven objective study. 

Mr. MICHAUD. But the problem is, you went above and beyond 

what the law required, and that is what, I believe, is causing part 

of the delay in what we had asked for on the 97,000-pound, six 

axle. And I would encourage you to get us what we asked for in 

the timeframe that we asked for it. And if you want to study any 

other configurations, go ahead and do it. But I would expect what 

we asked for to be done in the timely fashion that we asked for it 

because of the reauthorization. 

Mr. MENDEZ. OK. 

Mr. MICHAUD. And so I would encourage you to consider that as 

well. 

Mr. MENDEZ. OK. 

Mr. MICHAUD. I see my time has run out, Mr. Chairman, so I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Mullin. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, panel, for being here. It is an honor for 

all of us to be able to serve this great country, and I think we need 

to always keep that in mind, that we need to put country first. 

And, Ms. Ferro, I have got a question for you. By FMCSA’s estimate, the trucking industry will spend more than $300 million by 

July 1st, implement new rules for modifications and preparations 

for hours of service. And in October of 2012 they asked for an extension on this pending the court case. And your office wrote back, 

said denying this request, saying they didn’t demonstrate the likelihood that the industry will suffer harm due to wasted training resources or confusion. 

Well, what is $300 million? I am a small business owner, and the 

only reason why I sit in front of you today is because I got frustrated with things just like this happening to me when I realized 

our biggest competition is the Government that is supposed to 

make things easier for us and safer for us. But when we would get 

a response that says we didn’t demonstrate how much harm it was 

going to cause to us, yet by your own study $300 million it is going 

to cost to implement it, and yet it is not even out of the court case, 

how is this a good idea and how was that decision made? 

Ms. FERRO. Mr. Mullin, at the core of your question was the word 

safety, and that really is at the heart of the decision that I made 

with regard to that request. The Hours of Service Rule was issued 

as a final rule over 15, almost 15 months ago, and it made changes 

41 

to the hours of service that drivers can operate large vehicles in the 

context of reducing cumulative hour accumulation. We kept the 14- 

hour workday, kept the 11-hour drive time. But the concept of, 

under the rule that is in place today, not the one that takes effect 

in July, going from a maximum average workweek of 82 hours to 

70 hours is at the core of impacting, reducing the risk of cumulative fatigue for a driver. So back to—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Well—— 

Ms. FERRO. Go ahead. 

Mr. MULLIN. And I understand what you are saying, but since 

1975 the industry has been doing a pretty good job, because 77 percent, we have less fatalities. It has dropped by 77 percent. So the 

industry has been doing pretty good so far taking care of themselves. And now all of a sudden we have got to have someone else 

tell us how to take care of things. And yet, by you own study also 

in 2009, you stated that 81 percent of the time an accident happens 

with a truck it is the car’s fault. 

So once again, why do we keep putting more and more strain on 

the backbone of our economy, on our truckers and small businesses? Why are we putting more and more on their backs when 

they have been doing a pretty good job so far taking care of themselves? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, let me reinforce again, at the core of the mission and the mandate for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is safety, saving lives by reducing the risk of crashes involving trucks and buses. The Hours of Service Rule and the hours 

within which drivers can operate is a core component of that, and 

it is true over a period of several years the agency developed and 

put in place a final rule modifying those hours of service to reduce 

the risk of cumulative fatigue. 

That rule takes effect in July of this year. It has tangible lifesaving benefits, and in fact is a cost-beneficial rule. The number of 

$300 million was our own estimate in the regulatory evaluation of 

the rule in what it would cost industry and others to train up for 

the rule. It is an average of 2 hours of training per driver. We understand and recognize through our own analysis the impact that 

our rules have on small businesses. As I mentioned earlier, the industry is small business America. So that is a very important sensitivity. But at the core of this rule is safety on our highways and 

all the people that travel either in a truck, in a bus, or around 

those vehicles. 

Mr. MULLIN. Ma’am, I actually have over 80 vehicles on the road, 

too, and I can promise you, as a small business owner, that is on 

our mind every day. 

Ms. FERRO. I am sure it is. 

Mr. MULLIN. Constantly. 

Mr. FERRO. Yeah. 

Mr. MULLIN. And it is at the core of our business. 

Ms. FERRO. Yeah. 

Mr. MULLIN. But typically when the Federal Government estimates the cost of implementation, they grossly underestimate it. 

And it takes away from other things, like us doing our job. And my 

only thing is, is I can’t come up with a good enough reason to tell 

individuals when they come up and tell me, why can’t we get an 

42 

extension when the courts are still hearing this? I say, well, I really don’t understand that either. It is still at the safety. I get that. 

But we are still talking about real dollars that is coming straight 

out of the pockets of, not your pocket, but my pocket. 

It seems very simple. Why can’t we just simply give an extension? I mean, get a letter that states that they didn’t demonstrate 

that it is going to do harm? That is a slap in the face. What is $300 

million, if that is not harm? 

Ms. FERRO. Tired drivers resulting in crashes on our highways 

is harm to the traveling public. Again, the Hours of Service Rule 

takes effect, goes into effect in July of this year. The request to 

delay was related specifically to the court hearing the case. Tomorrow are oral arguments on that case. I have high confidence in this 

rule. We have also been spending a tremendous amount of money, 

not tremendous, but mobilizing for training, for implementation of 

this rule, and it is very—— 

Mr. MULLIN. The difference between your dollars and our dollars 

is your dollars are given to you by our tax dollars. Our dollars we 

have to go out and earn. And I am just asking, please take this into 

reconsideration because it is going to hurt us. We all have safety 

in mind, but we should be working together, not against each 

other. 

Ms. FERRO. And I would agree. We are. And the parties have 

clearly an opportunity to make that same request to the court. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you. 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Ms. Esty. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A couple of 

quick questions coming from the State of Connecticut, which has 

seen enormous infrastructure damage over the last couple of years 

due to extraordinary storms and circumstances. So the first question is a fairly specific one. It has to do with the rural roads penalties on the 2-year. Frankly, we have had extraordinarily low 

record of accidents on our rural roads, but in the last 2 years, we 

have had—I had 3 feet of snow 3 weeks ago in my community. You 

can imagine when you have those kinds of extraordinary storms, 

as we did with Sandy, power lines down on the roads, which have 

nothing to do with maintenance of our roads, but has a lot of do 

with extraordinary storm events. We would like you to consider the 

2-year window and consider whether you can take into account 

weather conditions or something that would recognize that it 

should perhaps be a longer window or should recognize when we 

had storm Irene, storm Sandy, massive power outages, that that 

did rather artificially spike our numbers, which again are not related to the conditions of our roads or maintenance of them, but 

frankly measures—truly acts of God outside of it. 

We have some issues around tolling and would like you to consider whether there doesn’t need to be more flexibility. I understand that MAP–21 provides some greater measure of flexibility, 

but we have one of the most heavily used interstate corridors in 

the United States, and 95, we are looking at tolling right now in 

Connecticut, but the restrictions with only three States being allowed to look at this, the entire eastern seaboard has inadequate 

funds right now to upgrade and repair our vital, vital highways, 

43 

and we would ask you to consider greater flexibility for recognition 

of the reality that is in the Nation’s interest to move people and 

goods across this country, so greater flexibility on that. 

Also the Governor is very concerned that we look at allowing 

States to be considered entities that can apply for T&A. They 

would like—Connecticut is a small State. We have a lot of intermodal proposals that are too big for municipalities that States end 

up coordinating. Connecticut also doesn’t have any county government, so you basically go from municipal straight up to the State 

level, and so, again, recognizing some of our smaller States that are 

densely populated that you would consider, and I would be happy 

to work with your staff, I will send more detailed questions, but 

really to flag these issues for your consideration in our joint efforts 

to improve the infrastructure in the United States and recognize, 

though, some of our States which are heavily populated have had 

some extraordinary demands in recent years, and we are struggling 

with tough budgets to creatively use the funds that come from the 

Federal Government in ways that allow us to do right by the citizens of our States. 

So if you could have any comments now, that is great, but really 

mostly to flag those concerns and ask for your assistance in working with us on providing flexibility we need to do what we are all 

here to do, which is to improve the infrastructure in the United 

States and improve the lives of our citizens. 

Mr. MENDEZ. Let me comment. I do appreciate the issues that 

you raise. I think the best thing to do is have my office meet with 

your office so we can run through your issues and see what we can 

do. OK? 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MENDEZ. Sure. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Barletta. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mendez, back on 

the truck size and weight study. Pennsylvania, my home State, has 

5,000 structurally deficient bridges. Our neighbor State of Ohio has 

4,000 structurally deficient bridges. Adding 17,000 pounds to our 

trucks aren’t going to make our bridges any safer in Pennsylvania 

or in Ohio or in the hills of Tennessee or on a winter road in Minnesota. 

The interstate system was designed to move goods across the 

country efficiently. Having a patchwork, jigsaw interstate system 

where one State allows heavier trucks, one State does not would 

be typical of Washington’s involvement to take something that 

works and mess it up. 

But I worked on a weigh scale, and I could tell you it doesn’t 

matter if you add 10 axles to that truck. If it is not loaded properly, 

it is not going to matter how many axles are on the truck. 

But my question is, do you agree that Congress should await the 

results of the study before proceeding to consider any further legislation dealing with heavier trucks? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Well, let me just reiterate that our intent, as you 

directed us to do, is to bring to you a study that is going to hopefully address all the issues and then give you the information so 

44 

you as a body can debate what needs to be done on a national 

basis. 

I don’t know that I necessarily need to comment on what Congress should or shouldn’t do. I think my role is to provide you with 

the best information, the best study that we can provide to you, as 

I said earlier, it needs to be objective and data-driven, and then 

you can figure out through your body, and through your deliberation, what is the best thing to do for the Nation. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. I was in the pavement marking business before I came to Congress, before I was mayor and came to 

Congress, so I understand the importance of retroreflective pavement markings. When people can see the lines on the roads and 

the signs along the roads, it saves lives. And I was very proud of 

that work. And I was also pleased to see that the language that 

I proposed that would allow for easier access to the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program for pavement markings and sign 

retroreflectivity made it into the final bill. However, I find it a bit 

disturbing that FHWA is still proposing that each project should 

include data on the need for these safety improvements, when the 

FHWA has conducted or sponsored research on the systematic benefits of sign and pavement marking retroreflectivity projects already. This seems to be a waste of taxpayer’s dollars to require 

data collection on the need for sign and pavement marking 

retroreflectivity projects, when the cost-effectiveness of these 

projects has already been proven. 

If the State sees a need to utilize these funds for retroreflectivity 

projects, will you really require further collection of more data and 

waste more time, when these projects could be completed quickly 

and more efficiently? 

Mr. MENDEZ. You raise a very good point. Let me take that back 

to my office, let me get my people together and go through this 

issue one more time, and we will get back to you. 

Mr. BARLETTA. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. MENDEZ. I think you framed it in a different perspective, and 

I do appreciate that. 

[The information follows:] 

We do not believe an insert is required for this exchange. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Well, it is all about saving lives—— 

Mr. MENDEZ. I agree. 

Mr. BARLETTA [continuing]. And here is a way we can do it. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MENDEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate hearing 

this. My question is for Administrator Ferro. Last year the subcommittee had the opportunity to hear from you about truck and 

bus safety programs, and I submitted a question to you about 

whether or not you would be willing to come up with an alternative 

for, and what I am talking about as hazardous materials safety 

permit process, and coming up with an alternative other than having to age out of, you know, whatever the violation is that may not 

be—you know, that isn’t related to a crash or something. 

45 

And the alternative approach that I have been looking at or that 

we have been pushing is for a—you know, either allow that individual to, or company to, you know, put out a full review of their 

safety management controls, or if the opportunity arose or come up 

with some sort of an opportunity to provide a corrective action plan 

prior to denying that permit. 

And I very much appreciate your response, which you did give 

me a response, and you did note that under the current process 

there is no opportunity allowed to file corrective action plans or 

demonstrate their fitness, but you also—and you also pointed out, 

too, that under Section 33.014 that it precluded you from making 

any changes until you had made an assessment of the program. 

But what my question to you is, and I don’t see anything that 

prevents you from requiring that you have to wait until that assessment is done or taking some early action, and I am just simply 

asking you if you can come up with something, some opportunity 

to either, you know, bridge that gap between now and when that 

is all finished and when you have completed your study to be able 

to have some sort of a waiver process or some sort of an opportunity to be able to—you know, to demonstrate this process without 

having to be denied and then, you know, coming back through, 

through that process, because it is a—you know, this is something 

that is a pretty big deal to me. 

Ms. FERRO. Congressman, I appreciate that. And following our 

meeting with you, we did in fact make a pretty significant modification to how it is calculated by averaging the violation rate over 

an 8-year period instead of that rolling 2-year average, and I think 

that helped a great deal to balance, offset some of the, maybe the 

unfairness of the program to set a better balance. 

We have since met with stakeholders on this permit, and we continue to drive towards—let me just simply say, I continue to be 

open to opportunities to address the areas of concern that stakeholders have raised. 

The challenge for an appeal does exist today when it comes to 

specific elements within their violation history. If there is a specific 

violation and a permit holder feels was not accurately applied, they 

go through the DataQ process. If there is a history of crashes that 

the permit holder feels were preventable, we consider that before 

we make a final decision. This is one of the areas where we do consider preventability when it comes to crashes. 

That final step of allowing a permit holder that we have denied 

a permit to submit a corrective action plan is the piece that I really 

want us to finish the analysis that is—we are required to do under 

MAP–21. I expect to complete that analysis this summer, and so 

I would like to revisit with you what we identify in that regard 

after we finish that study and see if there are some interim steps 

we can take before we move to, if we move to a full rulemaking in 

that regard. 

Mr. GRAVES. Well, I am pleased to hear that you guys might be 

done with that before summer, you know. And if that isn’t the case, 

I wish we could find some alternative at least to bridge that gap 

between now and then, because this is really a—I mean, this is a 

frustrating process, and we just want the opportunity to be able to, 

46 

you know, again, appeal that or at least prove up that opportunity. 

And so, you know, the summer is not far away. 

Ms. FERRO. It is not. 

Mr. GRAVES. It is not very far away at all, and—but I would— 

you know, if we could come up with some sort of a way to bridge 

that—to bridge that gap, that would be a big help. But I look forward to talking to you about it and I do appreciate your openness 

on this. 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Farenthold. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Mendez, I know Mr. Rice was asking you about interstates 

currently under works. Interstate 69 in Texas is currently in the 

works. We are converting some existing highways up to interstate 

standards. So we are, in fact, growing the system, but it is an awfully slow process and awfully expensive process. 

I wanted to ask about a couple of issues. We have spoken a lot 

about the need for funding our infrastructure, and one of the alternatives that is sometimes floated around is a vehicle miles driven 

tax. And, frankly, my concern is with this, and I express it when 

people talk to me, is can this be done in a way that preserves people’s privacy. I mean, are we talking—the proposals have included, 

you know, GPS and things like that. Is the technology in place to 

do this on a—anonymously and on some sort of pay-as-you-go system where you don’t end up getting, you know, a thousand dollar 

bill when you renew your license tags? 

Mr. MENDEZ. There have been a few studies underway, specifically in the State of Oregon, looking at the concept. In fact, I believe they are beginning another pilot on that to try and address 

the privacy issue. I believe, just thinking back to some of the preliminary findings there, they believe that there is a way to address 

the privacy issue. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. I was just curious as to whether you 

thought it could be done and the technology was there. 

I want to get into the weeds a little bit with MAP–21. That is, 

you know, more specifically what we are looking at in this hearing. 

And Section 1309 addresses accelerated completion of environmental impact studies. It requires completion less than 4 years 

after the issuance of a notice of intent, but it is not clear how this 

applies to projects where a notice of intent was already issued before MAP–21, and, in fact, in some cases more than 4 years before 

MAP–21. 

Do you intend to clarify this in regulation or are we going to see 

an issue where in order to meet the 4-year standard stuff that was 

previously started is going to be pushed to the back? 

Mr. MENDEZ. No. We actually are working on a lot of these 

issues simultaneously. There are a lot of provisions, including that 

one that you are talking about, and we are working on that with 

other Federal agencies just trying to figure out what the issues are, 

and eventually we will come out with some guidance. We are not 

there yet, but it is not being pushed to the back, by the way. It 

is a very important provision. 

47 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. And in that rulemaking, I would also 

encourage you to consider having the 4-year timeframe applies to 

design-build projects as well, as they are not following the traditional, you know, procedures. 

Mr. MENDEZ. Right. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And let us go to Section 1317 now. It creates 

a categorical exclusion for projects with limited Federal assistance. 

And we all recognize that funding estimates frequently change, and 

unfortunately frequently change for the worse, but before and after 

a NEPA decision, is it possible that a project could have a change 

order during construction that would put the Federal participation 

beyond the threshold established in the statute, and can we look 

at maybe a regulation to address that as well? 

Mr. MENDEZ. We, as I mentioned earlier, for that specific item, 

we actually issued a notice of proposed rulemaking about 2, 3 

weeks ago. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. OK. I hadn’t seen that. I apologize. 

Mr. MENDEZ. Yes. So that is out there. We will bring in all the 

comments. As I was reminded, we have a 60-day comment period, 

and we will get that out, it seems to me, some time this year. I 

think earlier I had said next year. It is probably going to be this 

year. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. And also Section 1318 requires DOT 

to do a survey on the use of categorical exclusions among States 

and solicit ideas for new categorical exclusions. Have you all 

thought about what type of other categorical exclusions you all are 

thinking about? 

Mr. MENDEZ. Yes. The survey actually was conducted and was 

finished, I believe, late last year in 2012. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And so are we going to get public comment 

and rulemaking as a result of that? 

Mr. MENDEZ. That is correct. We are wrapping those results into 

rulemaking, along with some other provisions that required us to 

look at other CEs. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. OK. 

Mr. MENDEZ. So all that—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. 

Mr. MENDEZ [continuing]. Is being wrapped up together. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Great. And I am running out of time. I did 

have a quick question for Mr. Strickland. Having seen your testimony that we are having a lot of success with our seatbelt programs that have come through, are we reaching a time now, especially in time of furloughing Federal employees, that we might be 

thinking it is time to watch where we are spending our money and 

not spend it on things that I think have become common sense for 

most Americans? 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, Mr. Farenthold, I appreciate the compliment about our success of our programs, but frankly, we have 

to redouble our efforts on belts, recognizing the fact that of our 

highway traffic safety fatalities half of them are still unbelted. So 

that delta of 50 percent of the people not wearing their belts constitutes about 16,000, 17,000 people. 

So as opposed to thinking about maybe it is not the time to continue to focus on belts, it is a time to probably get that number up 

48 

even higher so that we do not end up losing half of our people to 

traffic crashes because of not wearing their belts. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Well, I see my time has expired. I 

would like to explore that more with you, but we are running late 

in the day. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for 

being here today. I apologize. As is typical of the committee process, we are in and out, so I may ask you a question that may be 

somewhat redundant, but it is localized and it matters to my district. And I would like to start first with Mr. Mendez and then Mr. 

Rogoff. It is about the streamlining process. I know that has been 

discussed. I have some specific projects in Springfield, Illinois, that 

will benefit from this streamlining process. They are about ready 

to undergo the environmental review process that could be costly 

and add to the length of time this project moves forward. I know 

those rules have not been finalized yet, and if you have already responded to this, I apologize, but, you know, this has a potential to 

fast track our projects and it will improve transit throughout my 

district. Do you know, can you tell me where you are at in terms 

of this process and speeding it up? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, as Administrator Mendez just mentioned—he 

spoke about the categorical exclusion rule—there have been two 

rulemakings as it relates to categorical exclusions, one specific to 

natural disasters that we were able to get out quickly. We also 

have this NPRM on categorical exclusions, which from the transit 

perspective perhaps holds the greatest promise to shorten the environmental review period, because it would enable some considerable amount of transit investments to go through the CE process 

rather than an EA or an EIS process. 

And that was actually a joint rule that we did together and 

which is a model that we are hoping to emulate going forward. 

That is now out for public comment with a goal of getting the comments back soon. We are going to get some comments back, and we 

are going to address them, but I don’t expect so much controversy 

that the publication of the final rule should be delayed. So we are 

optimistic. 

Mr. DAVIS. Great. Thank you very much. One last question for 

both of you again, and this has to do with some mass transit systems that I have talked to in my district, specifically in Bloomington, Illinois, and Champaign, Illinois. They are happy with the 

timeliness of some of the bus grants and how they are being awarded, so thank you for that, but they are a little concerned that once 

some of the new safety requirements that are tied to MAP–21 are 

implemented, that their ability to have access to the grants that 

make them able to serve many of our rural areas could be impacted 

by that. 

Are you working on ways to address these new requirements so 

that the process still remains as good as it is now? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, we are. I believe there is a fair degree of unnecessary worry and anxiety on the part of—especially some of our 

smaller grantees—about our new transit safety initiatives, and I 

have sought to address them. 

49 

We have made clear that when we talk about launching a safety 

management system approach, it is going to be scalable. It is going 

to recognize that, first of all, transit by and large is a very safe 

mode of travel. And our goal, as I said in my opening testimony, 

sir, is to try to provide some value-added guidance and standards 

without adding a great deal of cost or bureaucracy. 

We have a great opportunity here in that we are starting with 

a blank slate, since we were prohibited in law from issuing safety 

standards since 1964. MAP–21 changes that, but it gives us also 

an opportunity—rather than having to tweak the old—to really 

conceive from the ground up what is the right approach for the 

right type of operator, and we are going to do that. And I think 

once we do a better job of reaching out and apprising people of our 

plan to add value without adding a great deal of cost, we will get 

greater buy-in and less anxiety. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you. Thank you all for coming today. And 

I would like to yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

I ask unanimous consent that the record for today’s hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers 

to any question that may be submitted to them in writing, and 

unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Gentlemen and the lady, thank very much for being with us this 

morning. And this hearing is adjourned. 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

50 


Insert offset folio 8 here 79896.008
51 


Insert offset folio 9 here 79896.009
52 


Insert offset folio 10 here 79896.010
53 


Insert offset folio 11 here 79896.011
54 


Insert offset folio 12 here 79896.012
55 


Insert offset folio 13 here 79896.013
56 


Insert offset folio 14 here 79896.014
57 


Insert offset folio 15 here 79896.015
58 


Insert offset folio 16 here 79896.016
59 


Insert offset folio 17 here 79896.017
60 


Insert offset folio 18 here 79896.018
61 


Insert offset folio 19 here 79896.019
62 


Insert offset folio 20 here 79896.020
63 


Insert offset folio 21 here 79896.021
64 


Insert offset folio 22 here 79896.022
65 


Insert offset folio 23 here 79896.023
66 


Insert offset folio 24 here 79896.024
67 


Insert offset folio 25 here 79896.025
68 


Insert offset folio 26 here 79896.026
69 


Insert offset folio 27 here 79896.027
70 


Insert offset folio 28 here 79896.028
71 


Insert offset folio 29 here 79896.029
72 


Insert offset folio 30 here 79896.030
73 


Insert offset folio 31 here 79896.031
74 


Insert offset folio 32 here 79896.032
75 


Insert offset folio 33 here 79896.033
76 


Insert offset folio 34 here 79896.034
77 


Insert offset folio 35 here 79896.035
78 


Insert offset folio 36 here 79896.036
79 


Insert offset folio 37 here 79896.037
80 


Insert offset folio 38 here 79896.038
81 


Insert offset folio 39 here 79896.039
82 


Insert offset folio 40 here 79896.040
83 


Insert offset folio 41 here 79896.041
84 


Insert offset folio 42 here 79896.042
85 


Insert offset folio 43 here 79896.043
86 


Insert offset folio 44 here 79896.044
87 


Insert offset folio 45 here 79896.045
88 


Insert offset folio 46 here 79896.046
89 


Insert offset folio 47 here 79896.047
90 


Insert offset folio 48 here 79896.048
91 


Insert offset folio 49 here 79896.049
92 


Insert offset folio 50 here 79896.050
93 


Insert offset folio 51 here 79896.051
94 


Insert offset folio 52 here 79896.052
95 


Insert offset folio 53 here 79896.053
96 


Insert offset folio 54 here 79896.054
97 


Insert offset folio 55 here 79896.055
98 


Insert offset folio 56 here 79896.056
99 


Insert offset folio 57 here 79896.057
100 


Insert offset folio 58 here 79896.058
101 


Insert offset folio 59 here 79896.059
102 


Insert offset folio 60 here 79896.060
103 


Insert offset folio 61 here 79896.061
104 


Insert offset folio 62 here 79896.062
105 


Insert offset folio 63 here 79896.063
106 


Insert offset folio 64 here 79896.064
107 


Insert offset folio 65 here 79896.065
108 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 66 here 79896.066