U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

57–803 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025

S. HRG. 115–881 

NOMINATIONS TO THE AMTRAK BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS, THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY BOARD (NTSB), AND THE NATIONAL 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

(NHTSA) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 16, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

JON TESTER, Montana 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

RENAE BLACK, Senior Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 16, 2018 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 1 

Support statement dated April 6, 2018 from Chairman Bob Latta ............. 81 

Support statement dated April 6, 2018 from the National Safety Council . 81 

Support statement dated April 6, 2018 from the Governors Highway 

Safety Association ......................................................................................... 82 

Support letter dated May 9, 2018 to Hon. John Thune and Hon. Bill 

Nelson from Torine Creppy, President, Safe Kids Worldwide .................. 83 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Blumenthal .......................................................................... 15 

Statement of Senator Inhofe ................................................................................... 34 

Statement of Senator Wicker .................................................................................. 37 

Statement of Senator Moran .................................................................................. 39 

Railway Age op-ed dated May 10, 2018 entitled ‘‘Amtrak: Where is the 

public input? Where is the transparency?’’ by Joseph A. Boardman ........ 41 

Statement of Senator Peters ................................................................................... 42 

Statement of Senator Cortez Masto ....................................................................... 47 

Statement of Senator Hassan ................................................................................. 48 

Statement of Senator Gardner ............................................................................... 50 

Letter dated October 13, 2017 to Bill Sauble, Chairman, Colfax County 

Commission, from William N. Feidt, Executive Vice President, Chief 

Financial Officer, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) ... 51 

Letter dated May 9, 2018 to Hon. Jeff Denham, Hon. Michael Capuano, 

Hon. Deborah Fischer, Hon. Gary Peters from Jim Matthews, President 

and CEO, Rail Passengers Association ....................................................... 53 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 59 

Letter dated May 15, 2018 to Hon. John Thune and Hon. Bill Nelson 

from Hon. Frank Palone, Jr. and Hon. Jan Schakowsky, U.S. House 

of Representatives ......................................................................................... 61 

Letter dated April 12, 2018 to Heidi King, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from Hon. Robert E. 

Latta, Chairman, Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer 

Protection, U.S. House of Representatives ................................................. 63 

Prepared statement of Representative Michael E. Capuano ........................ 74 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 76 

WITNESSES

Hon. Tom Rooney, U.S. Representative from Florida ........................................... 4 

Joseph Gruters, Nominee to be a Member, Amtrak Board of Directors ............. 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Biographical information ................................................................................. 8 

Jennifer L. Homendy, Nominee to be a Member, National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) ........................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Biographical information ................................................................................. 19 

Heidi King, Nominee to be Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) ..................................................................................... 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Biographical information ................................................................................. 29 

Page

IV 

APPENDIX

Support letter dated May 15, 2018 to Hon. John Thune from Candace 

Lightner, Founder MADD, President, We Save Lives and Ed Wood, Founder, DUID Victim Voices ....................................................................................... 85 

Opposition letter dated May 14, 2018 to Chairman John Thune and Ranking 

Member Bill Nelson from Jason Levine, Executive Director, The Center 

for Auto Safety ..................................................................................................... 86 

Opposition letter dated May 14, 2018 from the Center for Auto Safety, Center 

for Biological Diversity, Conservation Law Foundation, League of Conservation Voters, Moms Clean Air Force, Plug In America, Safe Climate Campaign, Union of Concerned Scientists, Voices for Progress and Public Citizen ........................................................................................................................ 89

Opposition letter dated May 21, 2018 from the Center for Biological Diversity, 

Climate Hawks Vote, League of Conservation Voters, Plug in America, 

Safe Climate Campaign, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists and 

Voices for Progress ............................................................................................... 91 

Response to written questions submitted to Joseph Gruters by: 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 93 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 94 

Hon. Tammy Baldwin ...................................................................................... 94 

Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto .......................................................................... 94 

Hon. Jon Tester ................................................................................................ 95 

Response to written questions submitted to Jennifer L. Homendy by: 

Hon. Dan Sullivan ............................................................................................ 96 

Hon. Dean Heller .............................................................................................. 96 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 97 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 97 

Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto .......................................................................... 98 

Response to written questions submitted to Heidi King by: 

Hon. John Thune .............................................................................................. 99 

Hon. Roger F. Wicker ....................................................................................... 100 

Hon. Dan Sullivan ............................................................................................ 101 

Hon. Dean Heller .............................................................................................. 102 

Hon. Todd Young .............................................................................................. 102 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 104 

Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 106 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 108 

Hon. Edward Markey ....................................................................................... 114 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 117 

Hon. Tammy Duckworth .................................................................................. 119 

Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto .......................................................................... 120 

Hon. Jon Tester ................................................................................................ 121 

(1) 

NOMINATIONS TO THE AMTRAK BOARD 

OF DIRECTORS, THE NATIONAL 

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD (NTSB), 

AND THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Nelson, Blumenthal, Inhofe, 

Wicker, Moran, Peters, Cortez Masto, Hassan, Gardner, Cantwell, 

and Klobuchar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. We have three well-qualified 

nominees before the Committee today. Joseph Gruters, who has 

been nominated to the Amtrak Board of Directors; Jennifer 

Homendy, nominated to be a National Transportation Safety Board 

Member; and Heidi King, nominated to be the Administrator of the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Thank you to you and to your families for your willingness to 

serve. If confirmed, each of you will have an opportunity to improve 

our Nation’s transportation system and bring your considerable expertise and leadership to your respective agencies. 

Amtrak is the Nation’s principal intercity passenger rail service. 

Recent Amtrak collisions and derailments have underscored the 

importance of implementing positive train control quickly, safely, 

and effectively. 

While the statutory deadline for PTC implementation is a little 

over 7 months away, recent reports indicate that many railroads 

will be unable to fully meet this deadline. 

PTC implementation must be a priority for Amtrak and the 

freight and commuter railroads that operate over its infrastructure. 

As I said before, railroads should not count on any extensions to 

the statutory framework Congress passed in 2015. 

Mr. Gruters has been nominated to fill the eighth and final position on the Amtrak Board of Directors. He currently works as a 

certified public accountant and I believe his experience and qualifications will be an asset to the Board, if confirmed. 

2 

Jennifer Homendy is familiar to many of us here on the Committee as she currently serves as the Democratic Staff Director on 

the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials on the U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, a position that she’s held for the past 14 

years. 

Ms. Homendy’s substantial experience in surface transportation 

will be valuable to the NTSB’s efforts to investigate cases related 

to these modes. 

Finally, Heidi King currently serves as the Acting Administrator 

of NHTSA, where she has worked since September of 2017. 

Ms. King has substantial experience in both the public and private sector, managing large organizations and prioritizing a datadriven approach to management. 

Since taking on her role as Acting Administrator of NHTSA, she 

has demonstrated leadership and innovation in executing the agency’s important mandate of improving highway safety, and I’m 

pleased that she has been nominated to head this important agency. 

If confirmed, she will be responsible for overseeing numerous 

issues this committee has grappled with in the past few years, 

ranging from the Takata air bag recall to policies governing the development and deployment of automated vehicles. 

All of the nominees on today’s agenda are well qualified for their 

positions and, again, I will seek to confirm them as quickly as we 

can. 

With that, I will turn to Ranking Member Nelson for his opening 

statement. 

Senator Nelson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As you have outlined, along with the three nominees, we are also 

very privileged to have Congressman Rooney here to introduce 

State Representative Gruters, the nominee for Amtrak. 

Heidi King has been nominated to serve as the Administrator of 

NHTSA, which needs to be on the front lines of detecting serious 

vehicle safety defects and issuing recalls. This has been an area 

that has been lacking for NHTSA. 

For years, NHTSA has struggled with the Takata air bag recalls 

and we just had another example of that. A report done by the Minority Staff on this Committee, issued just last Friday, shows that 

there are still 1.3 million vehicles out there with those defective 

Takata air bags which are nothing more than ticking time bombs. 

Just in the state of Florida, three people are dead, 83 people are 

injured, as a result of these defective Takata air bags and that’s 

just one state. NHTSA has really not put the plan together for how 

we are going to get these additional 1.3 million vehicles that are 

out there on the road so their air bag can be replaced. 

I hope Ms. King will provide a detailed plan on how she will demand accountability from those involved in the Takata fiasco and 

finally implement a real strategy to help drivers get safe air bags 

in their vehicles. 

3 

And by the way, just to give you a magnitude of the problem, 

this is around 40 million vehicles worldwide with these Takata air 

bags in them and in the U.S., of those that have been replaced, 

there are still 1.3 million left. And it has already been two or three 

years that we’ve been doing this. 

Obviously NHTSA needs to do more to increase highway safety, 

including truck safety. For example, under-ride guards on trucks so 

that cars don’t slide underneath the trucks during collisions. The 

addition of this safety shield could have helped save the lives of 

many, including Lois Durso’s daughter Roya. Lois is here with us 

today, along with other tireless advocates. 

Lois, would you raise your hand, please? Thank you for being 

here. 

And I hope Ms. King is going to have some answers for the 

Durso family on that issue. 

The National Transportation Safety Board is another very important independent agency, as you’ve said, Mr. Chairman. It investigates transportation accidents and promotes safety and, unfortunately, tragic accidents happen. 

We know all too well, each of us on this committee, in our states. 

In Florida, whether it was the sinking of the El Faro in the hurricane, the collapse of the Florida International University Pedestrian Bridge, or the recent Tesla crash, families of victims rely on 

that administrative agency to thoroughly investigate these accidents. 

Ms. Homendy, if you’re confirmed and I certainly hope you are, 

we are going to rely on you. 

For Representative Gruters, I hope you agree that Amtrak really 

continues to be critically important to the country and also to Florida. 

We have in Florida a reliable, on-time, long-distance service to 

the state. We could increase it so much more, especially the line 

coming across from New Orleans as well as restarting that line to 

Jacksonville and down to Orlando. I can tell you those towns along 

the road in the Panhandle, they desperately want that service that 

was cut off after Hurricane Katrina. They want it restored. 

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

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

The three nominees before the committee today have been nominated for positions 

critical to safety, on the roads, the rails and in the sky. 

Ms. Heidi King has been nominated to serve as the administrator of the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (or ‘‘NHTSA’’). 

NHTSA needs to be on the front lines of detecting serious vehicle safety defects 

and issuing recalls. 

And this, quite frankly, is an area where NHTSA has failed. 

For years, NHTSA has struggled with the Takata airbag inflator recalls. 

Recall completion rates have lagged, and the death and injury toll continues to 

rise—particularly in my home state of Florida. 

During today’s hearing, I hope Ms. King will provide a detailed plan on how she 

will demand accountability from those involved in the Takata fiasco and finally implement a real strategy to help drivers get safe airbags in their vehicles as soon as 

possible. 

NHTSA also needs to do more to increase highway safety, including truck safety. 

One way to do this is to have more use of underride guards on trucks so that cars 

don’t slide underneath during collisions. 

4 

The addition of this safety shield could have helped saved the lives of many, including Lois Durso’s daughter Roya. Lois is here today, along with other tireless advocates. 

And I hope Ms. King has some answers for the Durso family on that issue. They 

certainly deserve it. 

The National Transportation Safety Board is another very important independent 

agency that investigates transportation accidents and promotes safety. 

Unfortunately, tragic accidents happen. We know this all too well in my home 

state of Florida. 

Whether it was the sinking of the El Faro cargo ship, the collapse of the Florida 

International University pedestrian bridge or the recent Tesla crash, families of victims rely on the board to thoroughly investigate these accidents. 

Ms. Homendy, if you are confirmed, and I certainly hope you are, we will rely on 

you. 

Finally, Mr. Gruters, I hope you agree with that it is critically important to Florida that Amtrak continues to be a strong and safe agency. 

For example, Florida relies on having reliable, on-time long-distance service to the 

state. Currently, many towns along the Gulf Coast are working to restore Amtrak 

service that was stopped after Hurricane Katrina. 

Following several deadly accidents over the last few years, safety must also be a 

top priority at Amtrak. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing. I now look forward to 

hearing from the witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

We do have a guest with us today, a colleague from the other 

side of the Capitol, Congressman Tom Rooney, who represents the 

Sarasota area of Florida, and he and I have a shared constituency 

because a number of my constituents are at least part-time residents of your district. When it gets cold in South Dakota, everybody heads down to Florida. 

So it’s great to have you here and he’s here to introduce Mr. 

Gruters. 

Representative Rooney, you’re recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM ROONEY, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA 

Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Nelson. 

Good morning. It’s my privilege to introduce to this Committee 

a respected community and political leader from Florida’s 17th District, Mr. Joe Gruters, who is seeking to expand his service to our 

country as Director of the Amtrak Board of Directors. 

Joe Gruters is well qualified to provide the oversight and leadership required of an Amtrak board member. I am confident he will 

draw on his experience to help Amtrak provide safer and more efficient service to the riding public as Amtrak moves forward with 

improvements to its operations. 

For the last 20 years, Joe has been working at the grassroots 

level as both a party activist and a leader and is also an active 

member of multiple community organizations and local government 

boards. 

Joe previously served as the Chairman of the Sarasota County 

Planning Commission and served on the Executive Board and as 

Treasurer of the Sarasota Humane Society. 

He’s also a member of the Board of Trustees for Florida State 

University where he was Chairman of the Presidential Compensation Committee as well as the Finance and Audit Committee, 

5 

which was responsible for an annual budget totaling more than 

$1.7 billion. 

Joe currently serves as an elected state legislator representing 

Sarasota and Manatee Counties in the Florida House. Through his 

service, Joe has established himself as a leader who promotes policies that make Florida one of the best places to live and work. 

Joe currently works as a certified public accountant and is a 

managing partner of Paoli & Gruters, Certified Public Accountants, 

and, last but not least, Joe is a great family man. He and his wife 

Sydney are raising three young children. 

We are fortunate to have an appointment of Joe’s caliber, willing 

to step up and serve on the Amtrak Board, and President Trump 

is fortunate to have somebody as respected and accomplished as 

Joe accepting the call to serve, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I 

yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Representative Rooney. We appreciate your willingness to come over and voice your support for this 

nominee. 

And I’ll ask the panel to come forward at this point. I think Senator Blumenthal wanted to make an introduction, as well, but he 

hasn’t arrived yet. So we’ll proceed. So if Mr. Gruters and Ms. 

Homendy and Ms. King would please come forward, we’ll move forward. 

We’ll start on my left, your right, with Mr. Gruters, and then 

proceed across, but welcome. Thank you again for your willingness 

to serve, and we look forward to hearing what you have to say and 

getting a chance to ask you some questions. 

So, Mr. Gruters, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH GRUTERS, NOMINEE TO BE A 

MEMBER, AMTRAK BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

Mr. GRUTERS. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member 

Nelson, and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to appear before you as the President’s Nominee to serve as a Member 

of the Amtrak Board of Directors. 

I also want to thank President Trump for the confidence he has 

placed in me with this appointment. I would like to thank Congressman Rooney for his willingness to introduce me and for the 

kind words. 

I also absolutely must thank my wife Sydney and my family. 

Without their support and help, I would not be in this position 

today. 

For nearly a half a century, through good times and bad, Amtrak 

has endeavored to be seen as a symbol of America’s ability to get 

around safely and quickly. I would like to be part of the team that 

adds a third rail to this reputational vocabulary economically. 

Currently, I am a small business owner in Sarasota, Florida, 

where I employ seven people in two different offices. I have an 

MBA and work hard to help small and medium-sized companies 

and their owners keep more of what they earn. 

I work on both the tax and audit side of accounting and have experience working on government audits. My experience and background are grounded in making the numbers work where we try 

to maximize investment by generating optimal results. 

6 

I believe Amtrak has the opportunity to do the same. Like President Trump, I believe in the possible and am willing to fight for 

it. I have been involved in public service and public policy since I 

was in college at Florida State University. 

I’ve long had a passion for pursuing good government, efficient 

government, and accountable government. I have had the opportunity to serve my community in state and numerous positions, including as Chairman of the Sarasota County Planning Commission, 

as a board member of the Florida Sports Foundation, as treasurer 

of the Sarasota County Humane Society, and as a state representative where I have served on the Joint Auditing Committee, as well 

as the Commerce and numerous subcommittees on the Commerce 

Committee. 

And so I treasure the opportunity to put my experience and passion to work on behalf of the Amtrak ridership and the American 

people. 

Amtrak’s mission is delivering intercity transportation with superior safety, customer service, and financial excellence. 

My time on governing boards of large government institutions 

provide me with strong experience to start quickly in this position. 

This experience includes serving as the Finance and Audit Chairman while a Member of the Board of Trustees of Florida State University. The annual budget exceeded $1.7 billion and the university 

was ranked the most efficient in the country while I was a Member 

of the Board and Chairman of the Finance and Audit Committee. 

I would like to bring this experience and a keen eye to the Amtrak Board to ensure appropriate oversight. 

I recognize the need to continue to improve Amtrak’s economic 

effectiveness, enhance the safety of our passenger rail lines, maintain the modernization of our products, and to continue to bolster 

our operational efficiencies. 

For that, we need to ensure accountable management and accountable control policies from the Board. 

Safety will be my top priority as a Member of the Amtrak Board 

of Directors. Tragic Amtrak accidents over the past several months 

in South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington State highlight the 

need for greater focus on safety. 

I look forward to working with the Board of Directors and Amtrak leadership on ways to strengthen the railroad safety, particularly at rail grade crossings, across the network. 

As a board member, I will work to support any and all efforts 

to ensure that positive train control is fully implemented on Amtrak by the deadline set forth by Congress. We have some serious 

challenges ahead in ensuring the safest, most reliable and efficient 

operations of Amtrak for the American people. 

I look forward to being able to utilize my experience in government and the private sector to work on the Board to ensure this 

happens. 

I again want to thank President Trump for this opportunity to 

serve and I’d like to thank this Committee for considering my nomination. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr. 

Gruters follow:] 

7 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE GRUTERS, NOMINEE TO BE A MEMBER, 

AMTRAK BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear before you as the President’s nominee to serve 

as a member of the Amtrak Board of Directors. I also want to thank President 

Trump for the confidence he has placed in me with this appointment and I would 

like to thank Congressman Rooney for his willingness to introduce me and for the 

kinds words. 

I also absolutely must thank my wife, Sydney, and my family. Without their support and help, I would not be in this position today. 

For nearly half a century, through good times and bad, Amtrak has endeavored 

to be seen as a symbol of America’s ability to get around safely and quickly. 

I would like to be a part of the team that adds a ‘‘third rail’’ to this reputational 

vocabulary: ‘‘economically’’. 

Currently, I am a small business owner in Sarasota, Florida where I employ 7 

people in two different offices. I have an MBA and work hard to help small and medium sized companies and their owners keep more of what they earn. I work on 

both the tax and audit side of accounting and have experience working on government audits. My experience and background are grounded in making the numbers 

work, where we try to maximize investment by generating optimal results. 

I believe Amtrak has an opportunity to do the same. 

Like President Trump, I believe in the possible, and am willing to fight for it. 

I have been involved in public service and public policy since I was in college at 

Florida State University. I’ve long had a passion for pursuing good government, efficient government, and accountable government. I have had the opportunity to serve 

my community and state in numerous positions including as Chairman of the Sarasota Planning Commission, on the Board of the Florida Sports Foundation, as Treasurer of the Sarasota County Humane Society, and as a State Representative where 

I have served on the Joint Auditing Committee as well as the Commerce and numerous Commerce subcommittees. 

And so I treasure this opportunity to put my experience and passion to work on 

behalf of the Amtrak ridership and the American people. 

Amtrak’s mission is ‘‘Delivering intercity transportation with superior safety, customer service and financial excellence.’’ 

My time on governing boards of large, governmental institutions provide me with 

strong experience to start quickly in this position. This experience includes serving 

as the Finance and Audit Chairman while a member of the Board of Trustees of 

Florida State University. The annual budget exceeded $1.7 billion and the university was ranked the most efficient in the country while I was a member of the Board 

and Chairman of the Finance and Audit Committee. I would bring this experience 

and a keen eye to the Amtrak Board to ensure appropriate oversight. 

I recognize the need to continue to improve Amtrak’s economic effectiveness, enhance the safety of our passenger rail lines, maintain the modernization of our products and to continue to bolster our operational efficiencies. For that, we need to ensure accountable management and accounting controls policies from the Board. 

Safety will be my top priority as a member of the Amtrak Board of Directors. 

Tragic Amtrak accidents over the past several months in South Carolina, Virginia, 

and Washington state highlight the need for a greater focus on safety. I look forward to working with the Board of Directors and Amtrak leadership on ways to 

strengthen the railroad’s safety, particularly at rail-grade crossings across the network. 

As a Board Member, I will work to support any and all efforts to ensure that Positive Train Control is fully implemented on Amtrak by the deadlines set forth by 

Congress. 

We have some serious challenges ahead in ensuring the safest, most reliable, and 

efficient operations of Amtrak for the American people. I look forward to being able 

to utilize my experience in government and the private sector to work on the Board 

to ensure this happens. 

I again want to thank President Trump for this opportunity to serve the country. 

And I want to thank the committee for considering my nomination. 

8 

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name (Include any former names or nickname used): 

Joseph Ryan Gruters 

‘‘Joe’’ 

2. Position to which nominated: Amtrak Board of Directors. 

3. Date of Nomination: February 5, 2018. 

4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses); 

Residence: Information not released to the public. 

Offices: 

Sarasota CPA Office, 2953 Bee Ridge Rd, Sarasota FL 34241. 

Venice CPA Office, 209 S. Nassau Dr #104, Venice, FL 34285. 

Sarasota Legislative Office, 381 Interstate Blvd, Sarasota FL 34240. 

Tallahassee Legislative Office, 1101 The Capitol, 402 South Monroe St, Tallahassee FL 32399. 

5. Date and Place of Birth: Tampa, FL; 07/06/1977. 

6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your spouse 

(ifmarried) and the names and ages of your children (including stepchildren and 

children by a previous marriage). 

Sydney Spence Gruters—USDA Rural Development Director—Florida & U.S. 

Virgin Islands. 

7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school attended. 

University of South Florida—MBA + 5th Year of Accounting, 2002. 

University of Costa Rica—MBA classes, 2002. 

Florida State University—BS (Finance, Real Estate and Multi-National Business Operations), 1999. 

8. List all post-undergraduate employment and highlight all management-level 

jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to the position for which you are 

nominated. 

a. Paoli & Gruters CPA’s—Sarasota, Florida (8/15 to present) 

i. Managing Partner of multi office firm. 

ii. Acquired and integrated staff and office of two different firms over last 3 

years. 

b. State Representative—Sarasota, Florida District #73 (11/16 to present) 

i. Serves on the Joint Auditing Committee along with Commerce and numerous 

business subcommittees. 

ii. Won initial election with 65.1 percent of the vote. 

iii. Received numerous recognitions and awards including being named a 

Champion by the Orlando Sentinel for my work trying to eliminate ‘‘dark 

money’’ 

c. Shinn & Company Certified Public Accountants-Sarasota, Florida (1/10–7/15) 

i. Managed and worked various projects in both attestation and non attestation 

engagements including governmentaudits. 

d. (YCOA) Yacht Clubs of the Americas—Fort Myers, Florida (12/06–2/08) 

i. Served as Executive Vice President and manager of home office during development and construction of multi-location $400+ million-dollar project. 

ii. Coordinated and managed task and staff to ensure timely completion of 

projects on budget. 

e. Vern Buchanan for Congress—Sarasota, Florida (5/06–12/06 & 2/08–12/09) 

i. Managed all aspects of campaign including staff; consultants and budget. 

ii. According to Politico Congressman Buchanan had the largest head to head 

increase in victory margin. 

f. Githler Development—Sarasota, F1orida (9/04–5/06) 

i. Coordinated various entitlement and project management related task for 

several developments. 

ii. Created budgets and revenue projections for various projects. 

g. Dr. Frank Schwerin for Congress—Naples Florida (2/04–9/04) 

i. Coordinated all campaign activities for open congressional seat. 

ii. Organized and managed campaign staff and consultants. 

9 

h. Buchanan Enterprises—Sarasota, Florida (11/00–05/04) 

i. Served in numerous government affairs and business roles for Vern Buchanan and his various corporate entities. 

ii. Assisted and Coordinated numerous projects and assignments as Vern 

Buchanan’s direct special assistant and project manager. 

9. Attach a copy of your resume ́. 

A copy is attached. 

10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other than those listed above, within the last ten years. 

a. Florida State University, Board of Trustees Member (2010–2016). 

i. Chairman—Audit and Business Committee. 

ii. Chairman—Presidential Compensation Committee. 

b. Sarasota County Planning Commissioner, Chairman (2004–2010). 

c. Florida Sports Foundation, Commissioner (2008–2010). 

d. Sarasota City Tax. Oversight Committee (2004–2008). 

e. University of South Florida, Community Advisory Board (2014 to present). 

11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, 

agent, representative, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, 

or other business, enterprise, educational, or other institution within the last ten 

years. 

Paoli & Gruters CPA’s—Officer (2015 to present). 

SJE Realty, LLC—Officer (2016 to present). 

AuditConfirm.com—Officer (2015 to present). 

GGD1, LLC—Officer (2017 to present). 

Florida State University, Board of Trustees (2010–2016). 

State of Florida House of Representatives (2016 to present). 

Harbour Point Real Estate—Officer (2006–2010). 

Humane Society of Sarasota—Treasurer (2010–2014). 

Republican Party of Sarasota—Chairman (2008 to present). 

Republican Party of Florida—Vice Chairman (2014–2016). 

Florida Right to Life—PAC Chairman (2007–2010). 

12. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable, educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or religious organization, private club, or other membership organization. Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any organization. Please note whether any such club or organization restricts membership 

on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or handicap. 

A. Donald Trump for President 

a. Co-Chair of Florida (2016) 

B. Republican National Committee 

a. Platform Committee (2016) 

b. Co-Chairman of Restoring the American Dream Committee (2016) 

C. Republican Party of Florida 

a. Member (2008–2018) 

b. Vice Chairman (2014–2016) 

D. Republican Party of Sarasota 

a. Member (2000–2018) 

b. Chairman (2008–2018) 

E. Florida Institute of Certified Public Accounts 

a. Member (2010–2018) 

F. Sarasota Kiwaois Club 

a. Member(2014–2017) 

None of these organizations restrict membership on any of the basis of sex, race, 

color, religion, national origin, age or handicap. 

10 

13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office (elected, nonelected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any campaign has any outstanding 

debt, the amount, and whether you are personally liable forthat debt. 

Yes 

State House 1998, 2000 & 2016 

Zero debt 

State Senate 2018 

Zero debt 

14. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $500 or more for the 

past ten years. Also list all offices you have heldwith, and services rendered to, a 

state or national political party or election committee during the same period. No Contributions have been made in the amount of $500 or more. 

15. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition for outstanding service or 

achievements. 

a. Associated Industries of Florida—Champion of Business Award (2018) 

b. Florida Chamber of Commerce—Distinguished Service Award (2018) 

c. Florida Crime Stoppers—Legislator of the Year Award (2018) 

d. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)—Legislative Voice for Animals. (2018) 

16. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have authored, individually or with others. Also list any speeches that you have given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated. Do not attach copies of 

these publications unless otherwise instructed. 

I have authored numerous guest columns and op-eds over the years for our local 

papers. 

a. Sarasota Herald Tribune—Gruters: County should not be pursuing a tax increase (May 2017) 

b. Sarasota Herald Tribune—Gruters: Invest in Jobs and Tourism (March 7, 

2017) 

c. Not Published—Gov. Scott and Legislature right to defund Planned Parenthood 

(April 2016) 

d. Sarasota Herald Tribune—Gruters: Scott is right on Medicaid (May 12, 2015) 

e. Observer Group Papers—Gruters: Forget the punditry, Rick Scott matters because results matter (January 2015) 

f. Sarasota Herald Tribune—Gruters: Best way to help the Mexican People is to 

seal the Border (April 28, 2010) 

17. Please identify each instance in which you have testified orally or in writing 

before Congress in a governmental or non-governmental capacity and specify the 

date and subject matter of each testimony. N/A. 

18. Given the current mission, major programs, and major operational objectives 

of the department/agency to which you have been nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment to the position for which you have been nominated, and why do you wish 

to serve in that position? 

I am honored to be selected for this position and hope that I can be a productive 

and contributing member in providing the corporate governance necessary to ensure 

Amtrak’s long-term success. As a business owner, a Certified Public Accountant ’and 

former Finance and Audit Chair of a $1.7 Billion government entity, I am well 

equipped to bring a business perspective that will be a valuable asset to the board. 

19. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to ensure that the 

department/agency has proper management and accounting controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large organization? 

My experience includes serving as the Finance and Audit Chairman and as a 

member of the Board of Trustees of Florida State University. The annual Budget 

exceeded $1.7 Billion and the University was ranked the most efficient in the country while I was a member of the Board and Chairman of the Finance and Audit 

Committee. I would bring this experience and a keen eye to the Board to ensure 

appropriate management and accounting controls. 

20. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the department/ 

agency, and why? 

11 

(1) Safety/Public Perception. Safety should always be a top priority and would be 

for me. Numerous safety incidents in the news have damaged the perception of Amtrak in the public eye, making safety improvements a double priority. Amtrak recently hired a new Chief Safety Officer reporting directly to the CEO and will lead 

Amtrak in its implementation and operation of a Safety Management System. I’m 

also aware of the importance of implementing Positive Train Control (PTC), and I 

fully support and expect Amtrak to meet its obligations consistent with the law. 

Safety must be the top priority, and I will work to help achieve Amtrak’s goal of 

being the safest railroad in North America. 

(2) Capital Funding. This is increasingly important for aging assets and directly 

connects to safety issues. Much of Amtrak’s infrastructure and equipment are at or 

near the end of their useful life and must soon be addressed. I am aware that Amtrak is looking at a new fleet strategy plan aimed at improving, replacing and modernizing locomotives and passenger cars. There are also serious infrastructure 

needs, especially on the Northeast Corridor (NEC). According to the NEC Commission, there is an approximate $40 billion state of good repair backlog. This aging 

infrastructure already causes disruptions and costs the economy in lost productivity 

while adding to passenger frustrations. It is evident that sufficient long-term capital 

funding should be made available to ensure continued support of passenger rail. 

(3) Operational Efficiency. Amtrak’s focus should be on maximizing the transportation value it creates with the Federal dollars it receives. To do this, the company 

needs to constantly grow revenue, drive down costs and deliver excellent customer 

service—just like any other business. One area of concern is the number of train 

delays, as I know that delays make for unhappy customers, and unhappy customers 

make for lost revenue as they seek alternative options. 

Solid operational oversight can improve service and limit delays for passengers. 

That being said, I know Amtrak’s National Network is dependent on their host railroads and their on-time performance is poor and declining. For the issues where 

Amtrak is reliant on others for its operating performance, I would look to working 

with ourpartners, including Congress, to find the most appropriate solution. Amtrak 

is doing what it can to be a responsible steward of taxpayer funding and is continually looking for ways to maximize the benefit of the public investments it receives. 

I am encouraged by the corporation’s recent progress in reducing its operating loss 

to historic levels, and I hope that one day Amtrak can eliminate its operating loss 

completely. 

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation agreements, and 

other continuing dealings with business associates, clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement accounts. 

I currently receive a salary from both the State of Florida and my CPA firm Paoli 

& Gruters, CPA’s. If confirmed plan on continuing employment in both capacities. 

2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal, to maintain 

employment, affiliation, or practice with any business, association or other organization during your appointment? If so, please explain. 

Yes, as listed above in question 1, I plan on continuing employment as a CPA and 

if the voters allow as a member of the Florida Legislature. 

3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other relationships which 

could involve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been 

nominated. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Governmental Ethics and Amtrak’s Ethics Officials to identify potential conflicts of 

interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with the 

terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with Amtrak and that has 

been provided to this Committee. I am not aware of any other potential conflicts 

of interest 

4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction, which you 

have had during the last ten years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or 

acting as an agent, that could in any way constituteor result in a possible conflict 

of interest in the position to which you have been nominated. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Governmental Ethics and Amtrak’s Ethics Officials to identify potential conflicts of 

interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with the 

terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with Amtrak and that has 

been provided by this Committee. I am not aware of any other potential conflicts 

of interest. 

12 

5. Describe any activity during the past ten years in which you have been engaged 

for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the administrationand execution of law or public 

policy. 

As a local and statewide party leader I have advocated on behalf of the Republican Party and conservative principles on numerous issues. 

6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any 

that may be disclosed by your responses to the above items. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Governmental Ethics and Amtrak’s Ethics Officials to identify potential conflicts of 

interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with the 

terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with Amtrak and that has 

been provided to this Committee. I am not aware of any other potential conflicts 

of interest. 

C. LEGAL MATTERS

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics, professional misconduct or retaliation by, or been the subject of a complaint to, any court, administrative agency, the Office of Special Counsel, professional association, disciplinary 

committee, or other professional group? If yes: 

a. Provide the name of agency, association, committee, or group; 

i. Florida Board of Accountancy 

b. Provide the date the citation, disciplinary action, complaint, or personnel action 

was issued or initiated; 

i. Complaint filed against me in June, 2017. 

c. Describe the citation, disciplinary action, complaint, or personnel action; 

i. Complaint was filed against me by client of firm purchased due to actions of 

past owner. 

d. Provide the results of the citation, disciplinary action, complaint, or personnel 

action. 

i. Complaint was investigated and dismissed at probable cause hearing and is 

not public record as it did not move forward to Board for consideration. 

2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any Federal, 

State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal, State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain. No. 

3. Have you or any business or nonprofit of which you are or were an officer ever 

been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding, criminal proceeding, or civil litigation? If so, please explain. No. 

4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendere) of 

any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain. No. 

5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual harassment or 

discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or any other basis? If so, please 

explain. No. 

6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in connection with your nomination. N/ 

A. 

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with deadlines for information set by Congressional committees? Yes. 

2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can to protect 

congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal for their testimony and 

disclosures? Yes. 

3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested witnesses including technical experts and career employees, with firsthand knowledge of matters of 

interest to the Committee? Yes. 

4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of 

the Congress on such occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so? Yes. 

13 

RESUME ́ OF JOSEPH RYAN GRUTERS

Education 

University of South Florida—Tampa, Florida 

• Masters of Business Administration (December 2002) 

• Specializations: Finance, International Business, Management 

• Fifth Year of Accounting 

University of Costa Rica—San Jose, Costa Rica 

• Completed graduate work during a summer semester (Summer 2002) 

Florida Stare University—Tallahassee, Florida 

• Bachelors of Science (December 1999) 

• Triple Major: Finance, Real Estate, & Multi-National Business Operation 

Employment History 

Paoli & Gruters CPA’s, CPA—Owner, August 15 present 

• Manage firm and serve as trusted professional for numerous businesses and 

families. 

• Purchased Paoli & Company and merged firms together. 

• Developed and currently marketing two computer applications to Financial Institutions and CPA Firms. 

Shinn & Company, CPA—Tax Manager, Jan 10–July 15 

• Prepare/Review Federal & State Returns 

• Prepare various special engagement projects for clients. 

Vern Buchanan for Congress—Sarasota, Florida, Campaign Manager, Feb 08–Dec 

09 

• Created and implemented strategy to increase win from 369 votes in 2006 to 

over 66,415 in 2008. Followingthe 2008 election, Congressional Quarterly reported that Buchanan had the largest increase in victory margin in the entire 

country 

• Coordinated efforts of all Campaign Consultants, Volunteers and Staff 

YCOA—Fort Myers, Florida, Executive Vice President—Government Relations and 

Operations, Dec 06–Feb 08 

• Coordinate entitlement activities for five projects. 

• Prepare Budgets and Pro-Forma’s for current and potential projects 

• Negotiate various contracts with contractors for various aspects of project 

• Coordinate all information and project managers for five projects being developed simultaneously. 

Vern Buchanan for Congress—Sarasota, Florida, Political Director, May 06–Dec 06 

• Coordinated all ground game and field operations for open congressional seat. 

• Coordinated efforts of 15 campaign staff members and numerous volunteers. 

• Originally offered Campaign Manager position but came in May to fill GAP in 

STAFF. 

Githler Development—Sarasota, Florida, Project Manager/Coordinator, Government 

Relations, Sep 04–May 06 

• Coordinated various entitlement and project management related task for several developments. 

• Created budgets and revenue projections for various projects and potential 

projects, 

• Responsible for finding, applying for and lobbying successfully on behalf of a 

project to receive a $l00,000 grant from government. 

Dr. Frank Schwerin for Congress—Naples, Florida, Campaign Manager, Feb 04–Sep 

04 

• Coordinated all campaign activities for open congressional seat. 

• Organized and managed campaign staff and consultants. 

14 

Buchanan Automotive Group & Buchanan Enterprises—Sarasota, Florida, Director 

of Governmental Affairs & Special Assistant to Vern Buchanan, Oct. 00–May 04 

• Handled all Government Affairs and Community Relations projects over a four 

year period full time and continued on as Consultant for next 5 years. 

Cardinal Mooney High School—Sarasota, Florida, Swim Coach, Fall 00–01 

Richard Bass Real Estate Appraisals, Real Estate Appraiser, March 00–Oct 00 

Florida State University, Student Government Association, Director of Student Lobbying, May 99–Dec 99 

Community 

Present 

• Florida House of Representatives 

» Elected in November 2016 representing Sarasota and Manatee Counties to 

represent Florida’s 73rd State House District. 

» Leading the fight on economic development bills in coordination with Governor Rick Scott. 

• Donald Trump for President Campaign. 

» Florida Co-Chairman 

» Recruited and organized all original County Grassroots Chairman and was 

one of the lead press contacts in Florida during primary. Continued as press 

surrogate throughout genera] election and was the Master of Ceremonies in 

majority of Florida events 

» Served as Co-Chairman of the Economy Jobs and Debt Subcommittee at the 

Republican Convention and served as one of two Trump Point people during 

full committee hearings. 

» One of 29 Electoral College Members 

• Florida State University, Board of Trustee (Appointed by Governor Rick Scott) 

» Chairman, Finance and Audit Committee overseeing a $1.6 Billion Dollar 

Budget 

» Former Chairman, Presidential Compensation Committee 

» Former Chairman, Student Affairs Committee 

» Former AD Search Committee Member 

• Republican Party of Florida, Vice Chairman 

» Chairman, Voter Turnout Committee 

» Former Chairman, Technology Committee 

» Former Chairman, 16th Congressional District Caucus 

• University of South Florida, Community Leadership Council Sarasota Branch 

Member 

• Republican Executive Committee of Sarasota, Chairman 

» Extensive Media experience, regular appearances on local and statewide television as well as source for Political Stories throughout Florida 

» Hosted several of the largest political fundraisers and rallies in Florida 

» Took top of ticket from 211 vote margin in 2008 to 15,385 votes in 2012 and 

to 26,422 votes in 2016. Led State in AB return percentage 

Past 

• Florida Right to Life PAC Chairman 

• Florida Sports Foundation Board Member (Appointed by Governor) 

• Mitt Romney Florida Delegate, 2012 Republican National Convention 

• Sarasota County Planning Commissioner, Chairman 

• Humane Society of Sarasota, Treasurer 

• City of Sarasota, Citizens Tax Oversight Committee 

• Conference Center Task Force, Finance Committee Chairman 

• Downtown Partnership of Sarasota, Board Member 

• Young Professionals Group, Board Member, Leadership Chairman 

• USTA Men’s League Coordinator for Region #5, Florida 

15 

• Greater Sertoma Club of Sarasota, Board Member 

• Young Republicans of Sarasota, President 

• Doubles for Deb, Board Member 

• Winefest—Uncorked, Board Member 

• Leadership Sarasota graduate 

• WLSS 930 AM Cardinal Mooney High School football color commentator 

• USTA, Team Captain, Regional Champs Men’s team 2001, 2002 & 2003, Mixed 

Team 2000, 2003 & 2005 

• Tomahawk Party, Founding Member and Nominee for Student President at 

Florida State University 

• Florida State University Water Polo, Team Member 

• Cardinal Mooney H.S., Class President, Editor-in-Chief/Newspaper, 14 Varsity 

Letters 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gruters. 

Ms. Homendy. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might be recognized to—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Blumenthal for, yes, an introduction. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. I apologize for 

being late but we have other committees meeting as often happens. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I’m very pleased to introduce Ms. Jennifer 

Homendy, who currently serves as the Democratic Staff Director 

for the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in 

the House of Representatives. 

Most important, Ms. Homendy was born in Connecticut. Her 

family continues to live in Plainville, Farmington, Southington, and 

New Britain area. Some of them may be here today. I hope they 

are. We’re very proud of all the great work you’ve done, Ms. 

Homendy, particularly in the area of safety and protecting consumers who use our transportation in the United States. 

You have been involved in oversight over the NTSB, which is a 

vital safety agency, tasked with investigating major accidents and 

providing recommendations to literally save lives, and few Members of this Committee or perhaps the Senate have become as familiar with the work of the NTSB as I and you have been over the 

recent years. 

I’m very proud of the safety expertise and background that you 

will bring to the Board of the National Transportation Safety 

Board and so I’m very honored to recommend you to the Committee 

and introduce you today. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Ms. Homendy, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER L. HOMENDY, NOMINEE TO BE A 

MEMBER, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 

(NTSB) 

Ms. HOMENDY. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member 

Nelson, and Members of the Committee, and thank you, Senator 

16 

Blumenthal, for your kind words and for your unwavering commitment to safety over the years. 

Although Virginia is now my home, Connecticut will always be 

where my heart lives. 

It’s an honor to be here today as you consider my nomination to 

the NTSB. I’m extremely grateful to Senator Schumer for recommending me, President Trump for nominating me, and Ranking 

Members DeFazio and Capuano for their support and for their 

faith in me and my work over the past 14 years on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 

Before I begin, I’d like to introduce my family. My husband Mike 

is my best friend and my biggest cheerleader and the most amazing 

father to my 10-year-old daughter Alexandra, who may very well 

appear before you one day as a NASA nominee, given her excellent 

grades in math and science and obsession with Star Wars and the 

National Air and Space Museum, or she will work at Disney World. 

So either way, she is well on her way to becoming your constituent, 

Senator Nelson. 

Also joining me today are my parents, Sante and Nancy Esposito, 

my brother Brian, my sister-in-law Danielle, and many close 

friends and colleagues, including NTSB Member Wiener, Member 

Dinh-Zarr, and many NTSB staff. 

I’m here today because I believe strongly in public service. My 

father spent his entire career as a public servant in the House of 

Representatives, retiring in 1998. He and my mother worked hard 

to instill in us the importance of serving others, to serve God, and 

a strong conviction that the actions of just one person can make a 

tremendous difference in the world. 

I believe those values are reflected in my work on the Transportation Committee and how to explain why I’m so passionate about 

safety. 

In 1998, a pipeline explosion destroyed a home in South Riding, 

Virginia, killing a mother of two. The NTSB investigated the accident and determined that had an excess flow valve been installed 

on the line, the explosion never would have occurred. The NTSB 

had been pushing for excess flow valves for nearly 30 years. 

In 2006, you passed the PIPES Act and implemented that recommendation. There is no doubt that your actions save lives and 

I’m proud that I was one of the lead negotiators on that bill and 

that 5 years later, you extended the requirement to other facilities. 

I believe the NTSB saves lives. The Board’s work informs decisionmaking of regulators and Congress. They help industries identify deficiencies and make vital safety improvements, and they provide hope to grieving families that something positive will come 

from their tragic loss. 

Over the past 14 years, I’ve listened closely as families recount 

the tragedies they’ve experienced. I understand their need for answers and their strong desire to find solutions to prevent future accidents and loss of life. 

I listened to Susan Connolly, Jed Miller, and the residents of 

Baker Estates, a mobile home park in Battle Creek, Michigan. 

They welcomed me into their homes and businesses after a major 

oil pipeline ruptured and went undetected for 17 hours. 

17 

I listened to Vicky and Dennis Moore, whose 16-year-old son died 

at a grade crossing accident in Ohio in 1995. It was a passive crossing with no active warning devices, much like the crossing where 

my father’s cousin was killed in 1982. 

I listened to Rebecca and Steven Seeling, who visited me following the death of their son Chris in 2005. Chris was a locomotive 

engineer who was killed along with eight others in a PTC preventable chlorine accident in Graniteville, South Carolina, and you listened, too. 

Throughout the past 14 years, I’ve watched each of you move legislation that makes significant strides in safety, often closing longstanding NTSB recommendations that were issued in response to 

these and other tragedies. Thank you so much for allowing me to 

be part of that. 

In closing, I’d like to take a moment to address the people who 

made this possible, the hard-working women and men at the 

NTSB. 

Thank you all for your expertise, for your steadfast commitment 

to safety, and for your advocacy and guidance over the years. Without you, the voices of these families and many others may never 

have been heard. 

If confirmed, I consider it a great honor and privilege to serve my 

country and work with this Committee to improve safety across all 

the modes of transportation. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement and biographical information of Ms. 

Homendy follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JENNIFER L. HOMENDY, NOMINEE TO BE A MEMBER, 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD (NTSB) 

Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the Committee. I am honored to appear before you today as you consider my nomination to 

be a Member of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB or Board). I am 

extremely grateful to Senator Schumer for recommending me. President Trump for 

nominating me, and Ranking Members DeFazio and Capuano for their support and, 

most importantly, for their faith in me and my work over the past 14 years on the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I Committee). It has truly been 

an honor to work for what I believe is the greatest legislative body in the world. 

I would like to thank Senator Blumenthal from my home State of Connecticut for 

his unwavering commitment to safety. Although Virginia is now my home, Connecticut will always be where my heart lives. I would also like to thank NTSB Member Dinh-Zarr, Member Weener, and NTSB staff for joining me today, and your 

staff—in particular, Devon Barnhart, Patrick Fuchs, Adrian Arnakis, and Fern Gibbons—who have been tremendous partners over the years in our pursuit to improve 

transportation safety. 

Before I begin, I would like to introduce some of my family and friends. My husband, Mike, is my best friend, my biggest cheerleader, and the most amazing father 

to our 10-year-old daughter, Alexandra (Lexi). Lexi may very well appear before you 

one day as a nominee for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration given 

her excellent grades in math and science and obsession with Star Wars and the National Air and Space Museum. 

Also joining me today are my parents, Sante and Nancy Esposito, my brother, 

Bryan, my sister-in-law, Danielle, and my close friends, Cathey Capozziello and her 

two children, Sarah Belle and Mary Danz, Karen Hart and her two children, Ava 

and Roman, and Debbie Stokes. My brother, Mike, and my sister, Erin, and their 

families and my in-laws, Edward and Cathy Homendy, are viewing today’s hearing 

from their homes. 

There are a few things I would like for you to know about me as you consider 

my nomination. 

18 

First, I believe strongly in public service. My father spent his entire career as a 

public servant for the Legislative Commissioners’ Office of the Connecticut General 

Assembly, the Congressional Budget Office, the House Committee on Budget, and 

the T&I Committee, where he retired in 1998. He and my mother worked hard to 

instill in us from a very early age the importance of serving others, to serve God, 

and a strong conviction that the actions of just one person can make a tremendous 

difference in the world. 

I believe those values are reflected in my work as Democratic Staff Director of 

the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials of the T&I 

Committee, a position I have held since June 2004. If confirmed, I believe my extensive background in rail, pipeline, and hazardous materials safety will provide modal 

balance to the Board. Of the NTSB’s 40 ongoing major accident investigations, 13 

involve freight or passenger railroads, including the February 4, 2018, collision of 

an Amtrak train and CSX freight train in Cayce, South Carolina, and the 

December 18, 2017, Amtrak derailment near DuPont, Washington. Four additional 

ongoing accident investigations involve natural gas pipelines, including the August 

2, 2017, gas explosion at the Minnehaha Academy in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Second, I am passionate about safety. In 1998, the NTSB investigated a natural 

gas pipeline explosion and fire that destroyed a newly constructed home in South 

Riding, Virginia. A family of four was spending their first night in their new home. 

Around midnight, natural gas from a hole in the service line to the house entered 

the basement where it was ignited by the pilot light on the water heater, killing 

the mother and severely injuring the father. 

The NTSB determined that had an excess flow valve been placed on the line, the 

explosion never would have occurred. The NTSB had been recommending the installation of excess flow valves for nearly 30 years. 

In 2006, Congress took action and implemented that recommendation in the Pipeline Inspection, Protection , Enforcement, and Safety Act (PIPES Act) (P.L. 109– 

468) by requiring natural gas pipeline operators to install excess flow valves on all 

new or replaced single family residential service lines. Congress extended that requirement to multi-family residences and small commercial facilities in the Pipeline 

Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112–90). I am 

proud to have been one of the lead negotiators on both of those laws. 

Following enactment of the PIPES Act, the NTSB staff presented me with an excess flow valve that remains on my desk as a daily reminder of the importance of 

what we do on Capitol Hill—and what the hardworking men and women at the 

NTSB do—on a daily basis for our great Nation. 

The NTSB saves lives. The Board’s work informs decision-making by regulators 

and Congress. It helps industries identify deficiencies and make vital safety improvements, and provides hope to grieving families that something positive will 

come from their tragic loss. 

Over the past 14 years, I have listened closely to families as they recount the 

tragedies they have experienced. I understand their need for answers and their 

strong desire to find solutions to prevent future accidents and loss of life. 

I listened to the Connollys, the Millers, and the residents of Baker Estates, a mobile home park in Battle Creek, Michigan, who welcomed me into their homes and 

businesses in 2010 when the T&I Committee investigated a major oil pipeline rupture that was not discovered or addressed for 17 hours. 

I listened to the Moores, who testified before the T&I Committee about improving 

safety at grade crossings. Their 16-year-old son, Ryan, and two others died in a 

grade crossing accident in Northeastern Ohio in 1995. It was a passive crossing with 

no active warning devices, much like the crossing in North Carolina where my father’s cousin was killed in 1982. 

I listened to the Seelings, who visited Chairman Oberstar and me following the 

death of their son, Chris, in 2005. Chris was a locomotive engineer who was killed 

when his freight train was diverted from the main line to an industry track where 

it struck an unoccupied, parked train, similar to the circumstances surrounding the 

Cayce, South Carolina, accident this past February. 

Three tank cars on Chris’ train contained chlorine, and one of them breached. The 

entire area was overwhelmed with chlorine gas. As a result, nine people died of 

chlorine gas inhalation: Chris, six workers at the Avondale Mills textile plant, which 

was adjacent to the track, a truck driver who was at one of the plant facilities, and 

a nearby resident. More than 550 people were taken to hospitals, 75 of whom were 

admitted for treatment, and about 5,400 others were evacuated for several days. 

The cause of the accident was a misaligned switch and the NTSB determined that 

Positive Train Control (PTC) would have prevented it. 

Throughout the past 14 years, I have watched Members of Congress spend countless hours meeting with families struck by tragic accidents and moving legislation 

19 

that makes significant strides in safety, often closing longstanding NTSB recommendations that were issued in response to these and other tragedies. Thank you 

so much for allowing me to be part of that. 

In closing, I would like to take a moment to address the people who made that 

possible. To the NTSB Members and staff: Thank you for your expertise, for your 

steadfast commitment to safety, and for your advocacy and guidance over the years. 

Without you, the voices of these families and many others may never have been 

heard. 

If confirmed, I would consider it a great honor and privilege to serve my country 

at the Board and work with this Committee to improve safety across all of the 

modes of transportation. 

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

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): 

Jennifer Lynn Homendy 

Jennifer Esposito Homendy 

Jennifer Lynn Esposito (maiden name) 

2. Position to which nominated: Member, National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB). 

3.Date of Nomination: April 12, 2018. 

4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses): 

Residence: Information not released to the public. 

Office: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 590 Ford House Office 

Building, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515. 

5. Date and. Place of Birth: November 26, 1971; New Britain, CT. 

6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including stepchildren and children 

by a previous marriage). 

Michael Homendy (spouse), Software Development Manager, Robbins-Gioia, 

LLC. 

7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school attended. 

The Pennsylvania State University, Bachelor of Arts, Humanities, 1994. 

8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all management-level 

jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to the position for which you are 

nominated. 

Democratic Staff Director, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House 

of Representatives, June 2004 to present. 

Legislative Representative, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 1999 to 

June 2004. 

Legislative Representative, Transportation Trades Department, AFL–CIO, 

1997–1999. 

Manager of Government Relations, American Iron and Steel Institute, 1996– 

1997 (Legislative Assistant, 1996). 

Senate Assistant, National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), 1994– 

1996. 

Following graduation from The Pennsylvania State University in September 1994, 

I served as a paid temporary staff assistant for Congressman Lamar Smith (R–TX). 

I was offered a permanent position but declined because I accepted a position with 

the NFIB. Immediately prior to graduation, I worked as an intern for Senator Arlen 

Specter (R–PA, at the time) in his Harrisburg, Pennsylvania district office. 

9. Attach a copy of your re ́sume ́. 

See attached re ́sume ́. 

10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other than those listed above, within the last ten years. 

20 

I have not held any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time service 

or positions with Federal, State, or local governments other than those listed above, 

within the last ten years. 

11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, 

agent, representative, or consultant of my corporation, company, firm, partnership, 

or other business, enterprise, educational, or other institution within the last ten 

years. 

2017 to present: President, Baffa Academy Association, a parent association for 

my daughter’s dance academy (not compensated). In accordance with the terms of 

an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the NTSB’s Designated Agency 

Ethics Official (DAEO) and that has been provided to this Committee, upon confirmation, Iwill resign from this position. For a period of one year after my resignation, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which the parent association of a dance academy is a 

party or represents a party, un1ess I am first authorized to participate, pursuant 

to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d). 

On and off from 2010–2016: Board Member and President of the River Meadows 

Community Association (not compensated). 

2012–2015: Partner, Mommy Trader Movement, LLC (MTM), Fredericksburg, Virginia (not compensated). MTM was initially formed to help 5,000 local mothers buy, 

sell, and trade used toys, c1othing, furniture, and other items through a Facebook 

group page. to help reduce family expenses. Over time, MTM expanded to host 

events that raised funds for the benefit of a local YMCA financial hardship campaign and various Fredericksburg families-in-need. MTM also organized classes 

aimed at reducing costs for families; promoted local family-friendly events and 

smallbusinesses; and published family-friendly artic1es in Fredericksburg Parent 

and Family magazine. Articles I authored, individually or with others, are listed 

under Question #16. 

12. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable, educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or religious organization, private club, or other membership organization. Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any organization. Please note whether any such club or organization restricts membership 

on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or handicap. 

• Member, Trinity Episcopal Church (Fredericksburg, VA) (2016 to present); 

• Member, St Mary’s Catholic Church (Fredericksburg, VA) (2015–2016) 

• Member, Fredericksburg Country Club (2015 to present) 

• Member, YMCA (Fredericksburg, VA) (October 2017 to present) 

• Member, Cape Fear Triathlon Club (January 2018 to present) 

• Member, USA Triathlon (January 2014 to present) 

• President, Baffa Academy Association (August 2017 to present, see Question 

#11) 

• Member, American College of Sports Medicine (2013 to present) 

• Member, Fredericksburg Cycle Club (2014) 

None of the above organizations restrict membership on the basis of sex, race, 

color, religion, national origin, age, or handicap. 

13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office ( elected, nonelected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any campaign has any outstanding 

debt, the amount, and whether you are personally liable for that debt. No. 

14. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, 

political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $500 or more for the 

past ten years. Also list all offices you have held with, and services rendered to, a 

state or national political party or election committee during the same period. 

I have not made any political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $500 or more in 

the past 10 years. 

With respect to the second request, I have not held an office with a state or national political party or election committee. However, I volunteered with the Democratic Party of Virginia for voter registration in 2016 and for the Get Out The Vote 

campaign for Barack Obama in 2012 (door-to-door canvassing and telephone calls 

to campaign-provided lists). In addition, I volunteered for Peter DeFazio for Congress in 2012 and 2014 (phone calls to campaign-provided lists), and for Tom 

Perriello’s campaign in 2010 (phone calls to campaign-provided lists). 

21 

15. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition for outstanding service or 

achievements. 

Fellow, 115th Congress, Stennis Center for Public Leadership 

Honorary Recognition and Membership Award, United Transportation Union, 

adopted by the Board of Directors by resolution in 2007, in recognition of my 

‘‘immeasurable assistance in support of railroad workers and their welfare.’’ 

16. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have authored, individually or with others. Also list any speeches that you have given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated. Do not attach copies of 

these publications unless otherwise instructed. 

I have not authored, individually or with others, any books or publications. 

Articles and columns 

Although they are not relevant to the position for which I have been nominated, 

I authored (individually and with others) a column in Fredericksburg Parent and 

Family Magazine in 2013 called Frugal Living with Mommy Trader Movement. I 

also authored two articles in Penn State Harrisburg’s The Capital Times (student 

newspaper) in 1993. 

• Frugal Living with Mommy Trader Movement: Giving Back to Our Community, 

Fredericksburg Parent and Family Magazine, November 2013 

• Frugal Living with Mommy Trader Movement: Dress to Impress for Less, Fredericksburg Parent and Family Magazine, August 2013 

• Frugal Living with Mommy Trader Movement: 25 Free or Cheap Things to Do 

in Fredericksburg and Beyond, Fredericksburg Parent and Family Magazine, 

July 2013 

• Frugal Living with Mommy Trader Movement: Make Your Own Beauty Products, Fredericksburg Parent and Family Magazine, May 2013 

• Frugal Living with Mommy Trader Movement: Making Money on Household 

Cleaners, Fredericksburg Parent and Family Magazine, April 2013 

• Frugal Living with Mommy Trader Movement: Trim Your Waistline and Your 

Wallet, Fredericksburg Parent and Family Magazine, February 2013 

• Strategy for Sensible Eating, Penn State Harrisburg’s The Capital Times, October 25, 1993 

• Aquatic Aerobics, Penn State Harrisburg’s The Capital Times, October 25, 1993 

Speeches 

Since 2004, as Democratic Staff Director of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, I have participated in numerous panel discussions 

on the legislative outlook in Congress and various railroad, pipelines, and hazardous 

materials transportation issues. I did not keep a list of those panel discussions, but 

I have appeared before the following organizations: the American Public Transportation Association, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, Women in Transportation Seminar, Women in GovernmentRelations, the 

Transportation Trades Department, AFL–CIO, the One Rail Coalition, the Association of American Railroads, the International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 

and Trainmen, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

17. Please identify each instance in which you have testified orally or in w1iting 

before Congress in a governmental or non-governmental capacity and specify the 

date and subject matter of each testimony. 

I have not testified orally or in writing before Congress in a governmental or nongovernmental capacity. 

18. Given the current mission, major programs, and major operational objectives 

of the department/agency to which you have been nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment to the position for which you have been nominated, and why do you wish 

to serve inthat position? 

I am passionate about transportation safety. I have worked on surface transportation safety issues and some aviation safety issues (related to hazmat transportation) for more than 20 years, nearly 14 of which as the Democratic Staff Director 

of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives. 

During that time, I have worked extensively with the NTSB, the Department of 

Transportation (DOT), the DOT’s Inspector General, the Amtrak Inspector General, 

the Government Accountability Office, and transportation stakeholders to improve 

22 

safety. I have also worked to implement many of the NTSB’s Most Wanted List of 

Safety Improvements, including, but not limited to, recommendations on fatigue; 

worker training; implementing Positive Train Control; retrofitting rail tank cars 

that transport crude oil and other flammable liquids; installing excess flow valves 

on certain distribution pipelines; enhancing drug and alcohol testing of transportation workers; providing safety-critical information about pipelines to State and 

local emergency responders; and improving the safety of transporting hazardous materials. 

Prior to my work on Capitol Hill, I served as a Legislative Representative for the 

International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Transportation Trades Department, 

AFL–CIO, where I also focused on transportation safety. 

Although I am not a fire fighter, I am certified in Core HazMat Operations and 

Mission-Specific PPE and Product Control, as prescribed by the National Fire Protection Association’s 472 Standard for Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents, and accredited through the National 

Board on Fire Service Professional Qualifications. This course, developed and provided by the International Association of Fire Fighters, trains fire fighters on how 

best to respond to transportation accidents involving hazardous materials. Throughout my career, I have worked extensively to strengthen safety and training standards for fire fighters, hazmat teams, and other first responders. 

I believe the work conducted by the NTSB saves lives, and I would be honored 

to serve our Nation and the public as a Member of the Board to improve transportation safety. 

19. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to ensure that the 

department/agency has proper management and accounting controls and what experience do you have in managing a large organization? 

If confirmed, I will work with the Chairman and other Members and staff of the 

Board, including the Managing Director and Chief Financia1 Officer, to ensure the 

Board effectively utilizes, manages, and conducts oversight of the agency’s resources. 

20. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the department/ 

agency, and why? 

Adapting to new technologies. Technology is changing the way we live, work, and 

travel—from unmanned aircraft systems and automated vehicles to positive train 

control and consumer products powered by new technologies. Many of these new 

technologies, if implemented safely and reliably, could significantly reduce the number of transportation accidents, potentially saving tens of thousands of lives. 

Technology also plays a significant role in accident response and investigation 

techniques, with the NTSB and numerous State and local response agencies now 

utilizing drones to assess accident scenes. All of this means the Board and staff 

must stay on top of emerging technology in the transportation industry, which requires substantial and continual training, the time to provide such training given 

the number of accidents and limited number of NTSB investigators, and the ability 

to purchase equipment to conduct complex accident investigations. 

Addressing drug and alcohol abuse in transportation. Illicit drug use is a national 

epidemic. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, more than 26 million Americans aged 18 or older are illicit drug users, an 

increase from annual 2002 through 2015 levels. 

The NTSB lists ‘‘Ending Alcohol and Drug Impairment in Transportation’’ as one 

of its most wanted safety improvements. Since 2000, the NTSB has investigated 381 

fatal accidents involving drugs (medication or other substances) or alcohol. This does 

not encompass all transpo1iation accidents involving drugs or alcohol since the 

NTSB investigates only significant accidents in the surface and water-borne modes 

of transportation. 

While the number of transportation accidents involving the use of drugs or alcohol 

is low compared to the total number of transportation accidents in the United 

States, positive drug testing rates among transportation workers are on the rise. According to the NTSB, ‘‘About 8 percent of workers involved in rail accidents so far 

in 2016 havetested positive for drug use, including marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, 

benzodiazepine, oxycontin, and morphine. That number is the highest since the 

[Federal Railroad Administration] began keeping records in 1987, and three times 

greater than it was 10 years ago.’’ The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration also received reports from pipeline operators and contractors of higher 

drug and alcohol testing rates, prompting the agency to increase operator testing 

from 25 percent to 50 percent of the regulated workforce for calendar year 2018. 

Reducing human factor-caused accidents in all modes of transportation. Accidents 

caused by human factors constitute the largest category of accidents in all modes 

of transportation. In rail, for example, human factors accounted for 38 percent of 

all train accidents, or 26 percent of all commuter and intercity passenger rail acciVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:39 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57803.TXT JACKIE
23 

dents, from 2011 through 2016. Technologies, such as positive train control, can help 

prevent human factor-caused accidents, but we also need to address the underlying 

issues that lead to these accidents, including fatigue, inattention, and distraction. 

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation agreements, and 

other continuing dealings with business associates, clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement accounts. 

I have no financial arrangements, deferred compensation agreements, or other 

continuing dealings with business associates, clients, or customers. I have a Thrift 

Savings Plan and I participate in the Federal Employees Retirement System, a defined benefit retirement plan. Information related to my spouse’s retirement account 

is fully described in Part 3 of my Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure. 

2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal, to maintain 

employment, affiliation, or practice with any business, association or other organization during your appointment? If so, please explain. No. 

3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other relationships which 

could invo1ve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been 

nominated. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and the NTSB’s DAEO to identify potential conflicts of interest. 

I agreed to take those actions that are outlined in the letter to the DAEO; a copy 

is enclosed. These commitments constitute my ethics agreement as identified in the 

ethics regulations. 

As explained in my ethics agreement, my spouse is employed by Robbins-Gioia, 

LLC, from which he receives a fixed annual salary and bonus tied to his performance. For as long as my spouse continues to work for Robbins-Gioia, LLC, I will not 

participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific 

parties in which I know my spouse’s employer or any client of my spouse is a party 

or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate, pursuant to 5 

C.F.R. § 2635.502(d). 

Additionally, upon my confirmation, I will resign from my position as President 

of the Baffa Academy Association, a parent association of my daughter’s dance academy. For a period of one year after my resignation, I will not participate personally 

and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which the 

Baffa Academy Association is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d). 

4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you 

have had during the last ten years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or 

acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict 

of interest in the position to which you have been nominated. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and the National Transportation Safety Board’s DAEO to identify potential conflicts of interest. I agreed to take those actions that are outlined 

in a letter to the DAEO; a copy is enclosed. These commitments constitute my ethics 

agreement as identified in the ethics regulations. I am not aware of any other potential conf1icts of interest. 

5. Describe any activity during the past ten years in which you have been engaged 

for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public 

policy. 

Since June 2004, I have served as the Democratic Staff Director for the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials for the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, where I have engaged in drafting and influencing the passage, defeat, or modification of numerous 

pieces of legislation. 

6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any 

that may be disclosed by your responses to the above items. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and the NTSB’s DAEO to identify potential conflicts of interest. 

Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with the terms of 

an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the NTSB’s DAEO and that has 

beenprovided to this Committee. Pursuant to that agreement: 

• I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter in 

which I know that I have a financial interest directly and predictably affected 

by the matter, or in which I know that a person whose interests are imputed 

24 

to me has a financial interest directly and predictably affected by the matter, 

unless I first obtain a written waiver, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(1), or qualify for a regulatory exemption, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(2). I understand 

that the interests of the following persons are imputed to me: any spouse and 

minor child of mine; any general partner of a partnership in which I am a limited or general partner; any organization in which I serve as officer, director, 

trustee, general partner or employee; and any person or organization with 

which I am negotiating or have an arrangement concerning prospective employment. 

• Upon confirmation, I will resign from my position as President of the Baffa 

Academy Association, a parent association of my daughter’s dance academy. For 

a period of one year after my resignation, I will not participate personally and 

substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which the 

dance academy is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized 

to participate, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d). 

• My spouse is employed by Robbins-Gioia, LLC, from which he receives a fixed 

annual salary and bonus tied to his performance. For as long as my spouse continues to work for Robbins-Gioia, LLC, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which I know 

my spouse’s employer or any client of my spouse is a party or represents a 

party, unless I am first authorized to participate, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 

§ 2635.502(d). 

• If I have a managed account or othe1wise use the services of an investment professional during my appointment, I will ensure that the account manager or investment professional obtains my prior approval on a case-by-case basis for the 

purchase of any assets other than cash, cash equivalents, investment funds that 

qualify for the exemption at 5 C.F.R. § 2640.201(a), obligations of the United 

States, or municipal bonds. 

• I will meet in person with the NTSB’s DAEO during the first week of my service in the position of Board Member in order to complete the initial ethics briefing required under 5 C.F.R. § 2638.305. 

• Within 90 days of my confirmation, I will document my compliance with this 

ethics agreement by notifying the NTSB’s DAEO in writing when I have completed the steps described in the ethics agreement. 

C. LEGAL MATTERS

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics, professional misconduct, or retaliation by, or been the subject of a complaint to, any court, administrative agency, the Office of Special Counsel, professional association, disciplinary 

committee, or other professional group? If yes: 

a. Provide the name of agency, association, committee, or group; 

b. Provide the date the citation, disciplinary action, complaint, or personnel action 

was issued or initiated; 

c. Describe the citation, disciplinary action, complaint, or personnel action; 

d. Provide the results of the citation, disciplinary action, complaint, or personnel 

action. 

No. 

2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any Federal, 

State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal, State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain. 

I have held security clearances since 2000 and have received periodic background 

check investigations by law enforcement related to those clearances. Additionally, as 

a teenager, in March 1990, I was arrested for shoplifting. See Question #4 for further information. 

3. Have you or any business or nonprofit of which you are or were an officer ever 

been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding, criminal proceeding, or civil litigation? If so, please explain. 

I have not been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding, civil 

litigation, or criminal proceeding, except as described in response to Question #4. 

To the best of my knowledge, the businesses and nonprofits of which I am or was 

an officer have never been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding, civil litigation, or criminal proceeding. 

4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendere) of 

any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain. 

25 

As a teenager, on March 19, 1990, a misdemeanor for shoplifting. I deeply regret 

my actions. In addition to court-ordered penalties, I volunteered for community service, which included speaking to students and at-risk youth. 

5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual harassment or 

discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or any other basis? If so, please 

explain. 

I have never been accused, formally or informally, of sexual harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or any other basis. 

6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in connection with your nomination. 

Nothing unfavorable. As far as favorable information, I believe that my extensive 

background and expertise in motor carrier, rail, pipeline, and hazardous materials 

transportation safety would bring an added professional, modal, and issue-area balance to the Board. Of the 36 ongoing major accident investigations listed on the 

NTSB’s website, 12 involve freight and passenger railroads, including the collision 

of an Amtrak train and CSX freight train in Cayce, South Carolina; an accident involving two Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority trains in Upper 

Darby, Pennsylvania; the deaths of two CSX workers in Washington, D.C. who were 

struck and killed by an Amtrak train; and, the Amtrak derailment near DuPont, 

Washington. Four additional ongoing accident investigations involve natural gas 

pipelines, including the August 2, 2017, gas explosion at the Minnehaha Academy 

School in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

I would also like the Committee to know that I have a proven track record in 

working in environments that require collaboration, deliberation, negotiation, and 

teamwork. I have strong working relationships on both sides of the aisle, in the 

House and Senate and in the Executive Branch, with outside entities, and with 

Members and staff at the NTSB. 

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with deadlines for information set by congressional committees? Yes. 

2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can to protect 

congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal for their testimony and 

disclosures? Yes. 

3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with firsthand knowledge of matters 

of interest to the Committee? Yes. 

4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of 

the Congress on such occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so? Yes. 

RE ́SUME ́ OF JENNIFER LYNN (ESPOSITO) HOMENDY

Employment Background 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, D.C., Democratic Staff Director of the Subcommittee on Railroads, 

Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials from June 2004 to present. Legislative areas of 

expertise include issues involving the railroad industry and its employees; the safety 

of oil and natural gas pipelines; and the transportation of hazardous material in 

commerce. Specific duties include drafting, negotiating, and moving legislation 

through the legislative process; developing legislative and oversight agendas; preparing memos, speeches, and statements for Democratic Members of Congress; delivering speeches and panel presentations on behalf of the Committee; leading hearings and Committee investigations of Federal programs, policies and regulations; 

and carrying out oversight of Federal rail, pipeline, and hazardous material transportation programs, including the Committee’s extensive oversight investigation of 

the Enbridge oil pipeline spill in Marshall, Michigan, the Committee’s audit of the 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s special permits and approvals program, and the Committee’s 2017–2018 audit of the Department of Transportation’s drug and alcohol testing program (across all modes). 

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Washington, D.C., Legislative Representative from June 1999 to June 2004. Duties included representing the interests of 

Teamster working families before Congress and the Executive Branch. Areas of expertise included transportation and international trade. Transportation work focused on motor carrier, rail, and hazardous materials safety. Served as a cleared 

(classified) labor representative on the President’s Advisory Committee on Trade 

26 

Policy and Negotiations and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Trade Advisory Committee. 

Transportation Trades Department, AFL–CIO (TTD), Washington, D.C., Legislative 

Representative from August 1997 to June 1999. Duties included representing the interests of transportation workers before Congress and the Executive Branch. Areas 

of expertise included motor carrier, rail, hazardous material, and nuclear waste 

transportation safety; domestic manufacturing/Buy America; appropriations/budget; 

innovative financing, including state infrastructure banks and credit enhancements; 

and worker protections, including Section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act and Davis 

Bacon. 

American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), Washington, D.C., Manager of Government 

Relations from March 1996 to August 1997, having been promoted from Legislative 

Assistant. Duties included representing the interests of the American steel industry 

and its employees before Congress in the areas of transportation, environment, and 

energy; researching and preparing policy analyses of various tax and trade issues; 

serving as Staff Director of AISI’s Committee on Traffic; coordinating political action 

committee contributions to Members of Congress; representing AISI at coalition 

meetings and fundraisers; presenting monthly reports to AISI’s Board of Directors 

on legislative developments; interacting with Members of Congress, congressional 

staff, and AISI member companies; and drafting correspondence and memoranda. 

National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), Washington, D.C., Senate Assistant for Federal Governmental Relations from September 1994 to March 1996. 

Duties included researching issues that affect small businesses; serving as a member of the Guardian Advisory Council Taskforce, a team of staff assigned to restructure the organization’s activist/grassroots lobbying efforts; interacting with congressional staff; drafting correspondence and memoranda on various small business 

issues; organizing membership participation in, and issue development for, the 

White House Conference on Small Business held in June 1995; and providing legislative and administrative support to the Director of Federal Governmental Relations 

and three Senate lobbyists. 

Senator Arlen Specter (R–PA, at the time), Harrisburg, PA, Intern from 1993 to 

1994. 

Educational Background 

Certificate, Accident Investigation Orientation for Rail Professionals, the National 

Transportation Safety Board, May 2017 

Fellow, (115th Congress) Stennis Center for Public Leadership 

The National Board on Fire Service Professional Qualifications (through the International Association of Fire Fighters), Certified in Core HazMat Operations and 

Mission-Specific PPE and Product Control (hazmat operations-level responder training) 

The Pennsylvania State University, Bachelor of Arts in Humanities with concentrations in Public Policy and Journalism, graduated 1994 

Certified Personal Trainer, American College of Sports Medicine 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks, Ms. Homendy. 

Ms. King. 

STATEMENT OF HEIDI KING, NOMINEE TO BE 

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) 

Ms. KING. Good morning, Chairman Thune. Good morning, 

Ranking Member Nelson, and distinguished Members of the Committee. 

Thank you for the invitation to testify today as Nominee to serve 

as the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

I am grateful to Donald Trump, President Donald Trump, and 

Secretary Elaine L. Chao for their support and for providing me 

with the opportunity to serve our Nation by advancing safety on 

our Nation’s roadways and for the traveling public. 

27 

I’ll note it’s also an honor to testify on subjects of safety before 

you today with such a wonderful panel with the shared commitment to safety. 

It is also my pleasure to introduce my daughter Kristin who has 

traveled across the entire country to be with me here today. 

Public safety is a vocation in our family. I’m proud to tell you 

that my daughter, by the age of 16, served at my side as an Emergency Medical Technician in Chatham, New Jersey. Together, we 

witnessed firsthand the devastating effects of traffic crashes on individuals in our community, on families, and the community at 

large. 

That experience instilled in me a deep and abiding commitment 

to saving lives that is shared by all of the men and women of the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

NHTSA’s mission is to save lives, to prevent injuries, and to reduce the economic costs of traffic crashes. I am deeply honored to 

serve at an agency whose primary objective is safety, the safety of 

Americans, the traveling public, an agency that is working tirelessly toward that day when we will not have to bear the cry of 

grief from a wife that has lost her husband or of a child who has 

lost a parent in a needless traffic crash. 

My heart goes out to the many people who have suffered such 

losses, some of whom are in this room today. 

My early professional career as a California State Park Ranger, 

as an emergency medical technician, and as a 9–1–1 dispatcher 

provided me with firsthand and an up-close understanding of the 

tragic consequences of these traffic collisions and crashes. 

My later professional experience in both the public and the private sector, including at the White House Office of Management 

and Budget and at General Electric, provided the leadership experience necessary to lead this agency. It would be my intention to 

lead NHTSA, to continue the agency’s long history of data-driven 

and performance-based decisionmaking. 

I have had the benefit of meetings with you, many of you, and 

your staff in recent weeks, and I appreciate the opportunity to hear 

from you directly. I want to assure the Committee that I will maintain an open line of communication that you would expect from any 

nominee. 

Over the past seven months, it has been my privilege to serve 

as NHTSA’s Deputy Administrator, leading the team of dedicated 

and talented professionals. 

If confirmed as NHTSA’s Administrator, it would be my great 

honor to continue and expand upon their outstanding work in 

achieving that safety mission. 

I would like to briefly mention just a few of NHTSA’s accomplishments during my brief tenure as the Deputy Administrator. 

In February, NHTSA announced the creation of a new Compliance Assistance Program to facilitate and improve compliance with 

Federal safety standards. 

In March, NHTSA hosted a summit launching an initiative to 

combat drug-impaired driving on our roadways. 

Last month, NHTSA brought online a new electronic application 

tool for use by states and territories when applying for highway 

28 

safety grants, fulfilling another FAST Act directive and continuing 

our partnership with states. 

Throughout my time at NHTSA, the agency has been busy implementing historic improvements to data management, to risk analysis, for recalls and defects investigations. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Nelson, and Distinguished 

Members of the Committee, thank you for your time and for your 

consideration of my nomination. 

If I am confirmed, I would welcome the chance to work with all 

of you to improve the safety of our nation’s roadways. 

I’m very happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement and biographical information of Ms. 

King follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HEIDI KING, NOMINEE TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Good afternoon Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and distinguished 

Members of this Committee. Thank you for the invitation to testify today as a nominee to serve as the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

I am grateful to President Donald Trump and Secretary Elaine L. Chao for their 

support and for providing me with the opportunity to serve our Nation by advancing 

safety on our Nation’s roadways and for the traveling public. It is also my pleasure 

to introduce my daughter, Kristin, who has traveled across the country to be here 

with me today. Public safety is a vocation in our family. I’m proud to tell you that 

my daughter served at my side as an Emergency Medical Technician in Chatham 

NJ. We witnessed first-hand the devastating effects of traffic crashes on individuals, 

on families and in our communities. 

That experience instilled in me a deep and abiding commitment to saving lives 

that is shared by all the men and women of NHTSA. NHTSA’s mission is to save 

lives, prevent injuries, and reduce the costs of traffic crashes. I am honored to serve 

at an agency whose primary objective is the safety of the American traveling public, 

an agency that is working tirelessly toward that day when we will not have to bear 

the cry of grief from a wife who has lost her husband, or a child who lost a parent, 

in a needless traffic crash. 

My early professional career as a California State Park Ranger, emergency medical technician, and as a 9-1-1 dispatcher, provided me with a first-hand and upclose understanding of the tragic consequences of roadway crashes. My later professional experience in both the public and private sector, including at the White 

House’s Office of Management and Budget and General Electric, provided the leadership experience necessary to lead an agency. It would be my intention to lead 

NHTSA to continue the agency’s long history of data-driven and performance-based 

decision-making. 

I have met with many of you and your staff in recent weeks, and I appreciate 

the opportunity to hear from you directly. I want to assure the Committee that I 

will maintain an open line of communication that you expect from any nominee. 

Over the past seven months, it has been my privilege to serve as NHTSA’s Deputy 

Administrator, leading the team of dedicated and talented professionals. If confirmed as NHTSA’s Administrator, it would be my great honor to continue and expand upon their outstanding work in achieving that safety mission. 

I would like to briefly mention just a few of NHTSA’s accomplishments during my 

brief tenure as the Deputy Administrator. In February, NHTSA announced the creation of a new compliance assistance program to facilitate and improve compliance 

with Federal safety standards. In March, NHTSA hosted a summit launching an initiative to combat drug-impaired driving on our roadways. 

Last month, NHTSA brought online a new electronic application tool for use by 

States and Territories when applying for Highway Safety Grants, fulfilling another 

FAST Act directive. Throughout my time at NHTSA, the agency has been busy implementing historic improvements to our data management and risk analysis for recalls and defects investigations. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Nelson, and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for your time and consideration of my nomination. If I am conVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:39 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57803.TXT JACKIE
29 

firmed, I would welcome the chance to work with all of you to improve the safety 

of our Nation’s roadways. I am happy to answer any questions. 

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): 

Heidi R. King (also known as Heidi R. Muench 1989–1990) 

2. Position to which nominated: Administrator, Notional Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. 

3. Date of Nomination: April 12, 2018. 

4. Address. (List current place of residence and office addresses): 

Residence: Information not released to the public. 

Office: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, D.C. 20590. 

5. Date and Place of Birth: December 21, 1964; Ventura, California. 

6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your spouse (if married) and the names. and ages of your children (including stepchildren and children 

by a previous marriage). 

No spouse. 

Child: Kristin L. Muench (28 years). 

7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school attended. 

Bachelor of Arts, Economics (May 1995) 

University of California, Irvine, CA 

Master of Science, Economics (May 1998) 

California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 

8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all management-level 

jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to the position for which you are 

nominated. 

All post-undergraduate positions are listed below. Entries in italics highlight management-level and non-managerial jobs that relate to the position for which I am 

nominated. 

• Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. (2017 to present) 

• Global Director of Environmental Risk, GE Capital, Norwalk, CT (2013–16) 

• Chief Economist for Committee 011 Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. (2011–13) 

• Deputy Branch Chief, Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Executive Office 

of the President, Washington, D.C. (2007–11) 

• Research Scientist, Telcordia Technologies (formerly Bell Labs), Murray Hill, NJ 

(2000–01) 

• Senior Policy Analyst, Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Executive Office 

of the President, Washington, D.C. (1998–2000) 

• Volunteer Lieutenant, Crew Chief am/ Emergency Medical Technician, Chatham 

Emergency Squad, Chatham, NJ (1999–2007) 

• California State Park Ranger (Law Enforcement), California Department of 

Parks and Recreation, Pismo Beach, CA (1987–89) 

• 911 Emergency Dispatcher, Butte County Sheriff’s Office, Oroville, CA (1987) 

9. Attach a copy of your re ́sume ́. 

A copy is attached. 

10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other than those listed above, within the last ten years. None. 

11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, 

agent, representative, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, 

or other business, enterprise, educational, or other institution within the last ten 

years. 

Director, The Diaper Bank, North Haven, CT (2015–16) 

12. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable, educational, political, professional, fraVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:39 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57803.TXT JACKIE
30 

ternal, benevolent or religious organization. private club, or other membership organization. Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any organization. Please note whether any such club or organization restricts membership 

on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or handicap. 

Professional Association of Dive Instructors (2017–2018)—no membership restrictions. 

13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office (elected, nonelected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any campaign has any outstanding 

debt, the amount. and whether you are personally liable for thatdebt. 

I am currently a non-Senate-confirmed Presidential appointee at the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

14. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, 

political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $500 or more for the 

past ten years. Also list all offices you have held with, and services rendered to, a 

state or national political party or election committee during the same period. None. 

15. List all scho1arships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition for outstanding service or 

achievements. None. 

16. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have authored, individually or with others. Also list any speeches that you have given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated. Do notattach copies of 

these publications unless otherwise instructed. 

As Deputy Administrator for NHTSA, I routinely give public comments on the 

subject of automotive safety, driverless cars, cybersecurity, and impaired driving. 

Those comments are posted here: https://www.nhtsa.gov/speeches-presentations 

17. Please identify each instance in which you have testified orally or in writing 

before Congress in a governmental or non-governmental capacity and specify the 

date and subject matter of each testimony. 

In my role as Deputy NHTSA Administrator, on February 14, 2018, I testified before the U.S. House of Representatives at an oversight hearing convened by the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and 

Consumer Protection on the subject ‘‘Oversight of the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration.’’ 

I also testified as Deputy NHTSA Administrator on March 20, 2018 before the 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s Subcommittee on 

Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security on the subject 

of ‘‘Update on NHTSA and Automaker Efforts to Repair Defective Takata Air Bag 

Inflators.’’ 

18. Given the current mission, major programs, and major operational objectives 

of the department/agency to which you have been nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment to the position for which you have been nominated, and why do you wish 

to serve in that position? 

My background includes experience in public policy and regulation serving both 

the executive and legislative branches, institutional and operational risk management, traffic safety, emergency services and 911, as well as leadership and management. 

19. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to ensure that the 

department/agency has proper management and accounting controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large organization? 

I believe I will be responsible for the efficient, compliant and accountable operation of NHTSA. I am experienced leading a global team of professionals for G.E. 

Capital, interagency Federal professionals as an 0MB leader, and teams of emergency services personnel in public emergency services roles. 

20, What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the department/ 

agency, and why? 

• Rapidly changing technology requires that NHTSA assure safety while remaining in step with the changing technology, including driverless car technology. 

• Historic recall of dangerous Takata airbags requires a program to effectively 

convince individual consumers to take immediate action. 

• Talent Management and recruiting in a Federal agency workforce that has a 

high vacancy rate and a low turnover rate. 

31 

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements. deferred compensation agreements, and 

other continuing dealings with business associates. clients, or customers. Please include info1mation related to retirement accounts. 

In December 2016, I resigned from my position as Global Director of Environmental Risk with GE Capital U.S. Holdings Inc., a subsidiary of General Electric 

(GE). I hold stock options and restricted stock units in GE. If confirmed, I will retain these stock options and restricted stock units. 

I also have a 401(k) defined contribution plan from GE which is housed with Fidelity and invested in a diversified mutual fund; neither I nor GE makes any further contributions to the plan. If confirmed, I will retain my 401(k) plan from GE. 

I have life insurance through my former employment with GE. GE is no longer 

paying for the policy. 

I have a TSP account from my government service. If confirmed, I will retain my 

TSP account. 

2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal, to maintain 

employment, affiliation, or practice with any business. association or other organization during your appointment? If so, please explain. No. 

3. Indicate any investments. obligations, liabilities, or other relationships which 

could involve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been 

nominated. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation’s Designated Ethics Official to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will 

be resolved with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with 

DOT’s designated Agency Ethics Official and that has been provided to this Committee. I am not aware of any other potential conflicts of interest. 

4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you 

have had during the last ten years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or 

acting as an agent. that could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict 

of interest in the position to which you have been nominated. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation’s Designated Ethics Official to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will 

be resolved with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with 

DOT’s designated Agency Ethics Official and that has been provided to this Committee. I am not aware of any other potential conflicts of interest. 

5. Describe any activity during the past ten years in which you have been engaged 

for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public 

policy. 

During my two years serving as Chief Economist for the House Energy and Commerce Committee (112th Congress, 2011–2013) under the Chairmanship of Fred 

Upton (MI) I worked on many legislative and oversight matters. However, legislation was not enacted into law. 

6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any 

that may be disclosed by your responses to the above items. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation’s Designated Ethics Official to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will 

be resolved with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with 

DOT’s designated Agency Ethics Official and that has been provided to this Committee. I am not aware of any other potential conflicts of interest. 

C. LEGAL MATTERS

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics, professional misconduct, or retaliation by, or been the subject of a complaint to, any court, administrative agency, the Office of Special Counsel, professional association, disciplinary 

committee, or other professional group? No. 

2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any Federal, 

State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal, State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain. No. 

3. Have you or any business or nonprofit of which you are or were an officer ever 

been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding, criminal proceeding. or civil litigation? If so, please explain. No. 

4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendere) of 

any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain. No. 

32 

5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual harassment or 

discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or any other basis? lf so, please 

explain. No. 

6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in connection with your nomination. 

No negative issues known. I have the reputation of a hard-working, thoughtful, 

and analytical government employee with private sector management experience. 

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with deadlines for information set by congressional committees? Yes. 

2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can to protect 

congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal for their testimony and 

disclosures? Yes. 

3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with firsthand knowledge of matters 

of interest to the Committee? Yes. 

4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of 

the Congress on such occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so? Yes. 

RESUME ́ OF HEIDI R. KING

Regulatory economist and solutions-oriented leader skilled in navigating changes in 

public policy and experienced in emerging technology markets, financial and operational risk management. Experienced leader who enjoys motivating strategic 

change across organizations and within teams. Resilient and energetic team member, positive and pragmatic problem solver emphasizing integrity and respect for diverse innovative approaches. 

Experience 

Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 2017 to present 

Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Executive leader and Acting Administrator of U.S. Federal regulatory agency responsible for automotive safety, leading approximately 600 full time staff dedicated 

to the mission of saving lives, preventing injuries, and reducing costs due to traffic 

crashes. 

• Responsible for a significant regulatory program covering fuel efficiency, auto 

manufacturing, defects and enforcement 

• Leader of research programs advancing knowledge in both auto engineering for 

occupant safety and collision avoidance but also human behavioral factors impacting automotive safety risk. National 911 and Emergency Medical Response 

system. 

• Innovator in the appropriate regulation, de-regulation and novel safety programs for emerging technology in automated driving systems 

GE Capital Norwalk, CT 2013–2016 

Global Director of Environmental Risk 

Led a global team of technical and legal professionals informing investment decisions and strategy across GE Capital, a global financial services company with assets of U.S. $499 billion in global surface, rail and air transportation, energy. real 

estate, and manufacturing sectors. 

• Transformed a diverse group of environmental risk professionals into a world 

class global team responsible for increasing returns in project finance, lending 

and leasing 

• Innovated process improvements to optimize investment decisions with respect 

to evolving public policies in the area of environment, health and safety risk 

• Executed historic restructuring and the divestiture of $200B of operating business units 

U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 2011–2013 

Chief Economist for Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Legislated and oversaw executive agencies’ regulatory programs in the areas of energy, environment, transportation, agriculture, and manufacturing. 

• Mobilized congressional action and response to major environmental regulations, including greenhouse gas policies, CAFE standards, ambient air quality 

standards and utility and boiler emissions standards 

33 

• Promoted the effective use of economic analyses of business and social impacts 

across both House and Senate, improving priority setting and effective agency 

oversight 

• Pioneered agreement on measures to improve the effectiveness of the Clean Air 

Act through a series of unprecedented bipartisan forums with state governments 

U.S. Exec Office of the President Washington, D.C. 2007–2011 

Deputy Branch Chief, Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Advised White House leadership on regulatory initiatives and policy, leading Federal interagency review of economically significant regulations in the areas of environment and energy. 

• Orchestrated White House and interagency regulatory review to reduce regulatory burden and improve the effectiveness of the Clean Air Act and other 

laws. 

ImpactRx Mt. Laurel, NJ 2006–2007 

Senior Director, Oncology Group 

Venture capital funded startup pharmaceutical consulting and market research 

firm. 

• Market strategy insights for innovators in pharmaceutical products, increasing 

consulting contracts providing nearly one third of total revenue 

Pfizer Pharmaceuticals New York, NY 2002–2006 

Senior Manager, Management Science Group 

Business strategy quantitative research 

• Increased product sales by identifying growth opportunities using diverse competitive market information,secondary market research darn, and promotion response models 

Inductis Analytical Consulting Murray Hill, NJ 2001–2002 

Associate Consultant, Marketing and Statistics 

Analytics and data-driven management strategy serving clients in the financial 

services sector. 

• Designed and launched the probability-based software at the core of the leading 

financial services data provider in the U.S. 

Telcordia Technologies (Bell Labs) Murray Hill, NJ 2000–2001 

Research Scientist, Emerging and Internet Technologies 

Innovation and emerging technologies research at a former Bell Labs software division. 

• Launched consulting practice area designed to support participants in Federal 

spectrum auctions 

• Forecasted consumer demand for emerging technology products and services 

U.S. Exec Office of the President Washington, D.C. 1998–2000 

Senior Policy Analyst, Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Oversight of Federal agencies regulatory programs and research data collections. 

• Improved cost effectiveness of regulations issued by EPA, HUD, and other agencies 

• Reduced paperwork burden resulting from Federal programs 

Other Relevant Experience 

Chatham Emergency Squad, Emergency Medical Technician, Chatham, NJ 

California Dept of Parks and Recreation, State Park Ranger, Pismo Beach, CA 

Butte County Sheriff’s Office, Emergency Dispatcher, Oroville, CA 

Education 

M.S. Economics and Political Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, 

CA 

B.A. Honors in Economics, University of California at Irvine 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. King. 

I’m going to ask just one quick obligatory question here and then 

I’m going to skip to one of our colleagues. 

But I know you all appreciate the importance of establishing collaborative relationships between your respective agencies and ConVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:39 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\57803.TXT JACKIE
34 

gress. Nevertheless, these confirmation hearings give us an opportunity to underscore that point. 

If confirmed, will you pledge to work collaboratively with this 

Committee and its members and to provide thorough and timely responses to our requests for information? 

Mr. Gruters. 

Mr. GRUTERS. Yes. 

Ms. HOMENDY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. KING. Yes, absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

OK. I’m going to come back and ask my questions later on. 

I’m going to recognize Senator Inhofe for any questions that he 

might have at this point. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for accommodating a conflict that I have, and I have two subjects I want 

to broach here that I think are very significant. 

The first one has to do with your nomination, Ms. Homendy, to 

the NTSB. We have a friend in common who happens to be related 

to you who has been very supportive of me in an effort that I’ve 

been doing now since 2012 having to do with the changing the system that the FAA has in terms of how they treat general aviation 

pilots. 

It’s one of the last parts of our Justice system where you are 

guilty until proven innocent and so we passed a bill, it’s called The 

Pilot’s Bill of Rights, in 2012, and we addressed some of these problems. 

We addressed a system that where once it goes in the system, 

an alleged violation goes from the FAA to the NTSB, then it can 

go on into our district court system, which our intent was to force 

a de novo trial, which means they would not take everything that 

had been done before as the evidence but they’d start all over 

again. 

Now you’re going into, if you are confirmed, the NTSB. The problem that happened with this was some Federal judges disagreed 

with the intent of this legislation and so that does affect the line, 

the appellant line of the FAA to NTSB and then to the Federal 

courts. 

And so I’m fairly concerned about that and we went ahead and 

passed a second Pilot’s Bill of Rights. It passed this Committee. 

However, there are some provisions that were left off of it. Those 

provisions are now in the FAA Reauthorization Bill that we had 

passed through this Committee. 

Now my interest there is that one of the pieces of evidence was 

that when an alleged violation took place in the general aviation 

community that it would be passed through the FAA and then as 

it went into the NTSB, it was rubber stamped. 

In fact, I can show you, but there isn’t time to do that, how it 

was rubber stamped for a long period of time, and so I want to be 

sure that even though that is corrected in the current bill that we 

have considered in this Committee and will be going over to the 

other side in the FAA Reauthorization Bill, that you would listen 

35 

to me and your brother-in-law any time there is a case that comes 

before you, so you can get our perspective on this. 

Do you have any thoughts about the rubber stamping process in 

general? 

Ms. HOMENDY. My brother-in-law, I’m sure he’s very pleased 

right now listening to this. 

Senator, I can tell you and I’m sure everyone, including my husband behind me can tell you, I have never rubber stamped a thing 

that has come before me, and I want you to know that I will approach every accident investigation and matter that comes before 

the Board, including any appeals, any airman or mariner appeals, 

and I will look at that objectively, looking at all sides of the issue, 

before forming an opinion, and I’m very happy to work with your 

office on this. 

Senator INHOFE. That’s great. I appreciate it very much. 

Last, Ms. King, in the past, the EPA and DOT have taken increasingly heavy hands on regulating the automotive industry 

through more stringent greenhouse gas regulations and laws and 

just a few days before President Trump’s inauguration, the 

Obama’s EPA acted unilaterally to finalize the 2012 standards over 

a year ahead of schedule. Obviously we know why. 

Under President Trump, the EPA and the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration reopened the mid-term evaluation 

process. 

Moving forward, we’re going to have to prioritize the engagement 

with all public and private stakeholders and take into account— 

and the phrase is ‘‘economic practicability,’’ and I would just ask 

you, do you agree that we should go through with this process and 

keep in mind about the economic practicability as we move 

through? 

Ms. KING. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. That’s good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. King, you heard me make comments about Takata air bags. 

How long have you been on the Board? 

Ms. KING. Seven and a half months, since I joined NHTSA. 

Senator NELSON. OK. And are you in a position of Acting Chairman? 

Ms. KING. The Deputy Administrator. 

Senator NELSON. OK. And given the fact that, as I cited, three 

deaths in Florida, 80 some injuries nationwide, altogether that’s 15 

deaths, and 265 injuries, so we’ve got a problem. This air bag in 

the middle of the steering wheel when it is older and when it is 

subjected to humidity, the ammonium nitrate starts to degrade and 

the humidity affects it so that when you have a fender bender, it 

explodes with such force that it explodes the metal casing and suddenly it becomes a grenade in the face of the driver or the passenger and that’s how a number of these deaths occurred. 

There was a slight fender bender in the middle of an intersection 

in Orlando. When the police got there, they thought it was a homicide because the lady’s neck had been severed. They then to come 

36 

to find out it’s the shards of metal with that explosive force that 

had cut her jugular. 

Now that’s what we’re facing. Fifteen deaths already in the U.S. 

So the automobile makers have gone through the first round of notifying people but they haven’t really followed up and still there are 

1.3 million of these at-risk Takata air bags, the older bags. 

We’ve got to get the agency to do something about it. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is going to have to do 

something about it. 

Now you want to be on that. We need the automobile makers to 

present public plans to detail the specific steps of how they will 

complete these recalls of 1.3 million. All right. You get the picture. 

To stop the deaths and needless injuries, will you commit today 

to immediately ask all the affected automakers to submit detailed 

public plans with specific steps that they will take to improve and 

bring to an end the recall rates? 

Ms. KING. Senator, I have already invited each of the manufacturers to present their plans to me and those meetings are on my 

calendar. 

Senator NELSON. OK. Now I speak English and the question begs 

a yes or a no. Is that a yes? 

Ms. KING. Yes, I am meeting with each of the auto manufacturers to go through their detailed plans to complete an effective recall 

and replacement of each and every one of these air bags. Those 

meetings are on my schedule now. 

Senator NELSON. The question, however, is do you commit to ask 

them to submit detailed public plans with specific steps? 

Ms. KING. Within the constraints of law, I realize with manufacturers and with private enterprises, there may be confidential business information or other information that they would either not 

be allowed or should not release, and I would not commit to compelling them to release confidential business information. 

But you have my absolute commitment to continue to press each 

and every one of the manufacturers until each and every one of 

these dangerous air bags are replaced. 

One year ago today, the completion rate was 35 percent. Today, 

we’re at an overall completion rate of this recall of 58 percent. 

While that’s a tremendous increase, tremendous progress has been 

made in the past year, it’s not good enough. 

Both you and I agree on that. That’s why I’m so appreciative of 

your partnership and the work you have done to raise awareness 

in your state, your state being one of the ones most effective. Your 

press release educating the public last month about checking for 

open recalls and what to do if they see one was very important to 

each and every one of the men and women of NHTSA who go to 

work each day wanting to see each of these dangerous air bags replaced before another person is hurt or killed. 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I’m going to need some more 

time here because I have not interrupted Ms. King. The National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration is for the safety of people 

and I just don’t understand how this is such a hard question for 

you to answer. 

Either you are, yes, going to press them for a public plan and you 

talk about what has been done within the last year. This problem 

37 

started 4 years ago, and there are still over a million vehicles out 

there. 

This is life and death of the American automobile drivers and 

passengers. Why is that such a difficult question for you to say, 

yes, I’m going to ask them? I’m going to ask them and I’m going 

to commit to push them to come out with a public plan to finish 

up these 1.3 million bags? 

Ms. KING. Senator, I don’t disagree with you. I understand the 

keyword here is ‘‘public.’’ I will ask each of them to make public 

their plans and provide for that transparency. 

It would be a responsible and reasonable thing for each manufacturer to do, to make sure they’re public about their intent and their 

processes by which they see that each and every one of these dangerous air bags are replaced. 

As I mentioned, I have scheduled meetings with each one of 

them to go through their plan and to the extent that they have information that can be made public, I will encourage them to do so. 

Senator NELSON. Do you think they ought to be replaced? 

Ms. KING. The air bags absolutely have to be replaced, if they’re 

subject to recall. If they’ve been found to be dangerous, each and 

every one should be replaced, and I appreciate your support in raising awareness, and I’m going to put in a plug. Everybody should 

call 888–327–4236, to check whether or not their vehicle is subject 

to recall and act immediately to replace dangerous air bags. 

Thank you for your support. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

Senator Wicker. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Gruters, let’s talk about restoration of Amtrak along the Gulf 

Coast. 

The Omnibus Bill recently passed by the Congress and signed by 

the President provides for grant funds for restoration of passenger 

rail service. We haven’t had this on the Gulf Coast since Hurricane 

Katrina. 

Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson sent a letter to CSX expressing 

support for restoration along the Gulf Coast. The Southern Rail 

Commission and the Gulf Coast Working Group are to be commended for the steps they’ve made in making this work and the 

Gulf Coast Working Group pointed out that the mega-region that 

this would serve, the population is expected to increase by 10 million people in the next 30 years. 

So let me just say I support this. We cannot do it without strong 

partnership with Amtrak. 

Are you willing to be a strong partner with us in this respect? 

Mr. GRUTERS. Thank you very much, Senator, and I’ll tell you as 

a Floridian, I look forward to working with you on this issue to try 

to find a reasonable way to make this work. 

I know over the past 2 years, that you and Senator Nelson have 

both worked on Appropriations to make sure that the funding was 

there to restart this, and I will tell you as soon as my nomination 

38 

was announced, small towns started requesting meetings with me 

and to share the importance it is for them to get this specific trail 

up and running. 

So you have my commitment to working with you and your team 

to do everything we can in a reasonable way to make this work. 

Senator WICKER. Given that there is high demand for this route 

and the local community is willing to kick in to provide a portion 

of the funding, do you have an opinion yet as to whether this is 

an economically viable route for Amtrak? 

Mr. GRUTERS. Unfortunately, I am not on the Board yet, but I 

will tell you as a CPA, looking for efficiencies is certainly going to 

be important, but like I said, as a Floridian and having this route 

go across our entire state, the northern part of our state, I’d like 

to see it put back into place, and I will certainly work with you and 

your team and the Amtrak leadership to try to make it happen. 

Senator WICKER. You know, we think we can do the Mobile and 

New Orleans route first and then on to Tallahassee and points 

east. 

There’s another route in my home state I want to call to your attention and Members of this Committee and that’s the City of New 

Orleans. It runs from New Orleans on up to Chicago. I was on this 

train recently. 

I want to invite you and other members of your Board to join me 

in riding this train. I think it would be an education to see the 

amount of people that depend on this. 

So what do you say I meet you in McComb, Mississippi, and we’ll 

get on in the City of New Orleans? We’re going to go to Jackson, 

up to Greenwood, the new stop at Marks, and I’ll jump off at Memphis. Is that something that you’d be willing to look at and look at 

the service that we would provide and look at the individuals that 

depend on this service? Would you be willing to do that? 

Mr. GRUTERS. Absolutely, sir, and I would certainly welcome the 

opportunity to ride a train with you for a couple hours. 

Senator WICKER. Good. I think that would be great and so let’s 

do that. 

Let me just ask about the Host Railroad Performance Report 

Card. There’s some good news and some bad news in this respect. 

In Fiscal Year 2017, long distance trains were on time at stations 

only an average of 47 percent of the time. So there’s a problem 

with ridership. We might look at that. 

Report Card grades: Canadian Pacific got an A, BNSF—B+, 

Union Pacific—B-, CSX—C, Norfolk Southern—F, Canadian National—F. So a wide range of grades as I guess we have in every 

grading system. 

One important issue—this is an important issue facing Amtrak. 

Are you aware, Mr. Gruters, that The Wall says Amtrak has preference over freight rail in using a rail line but there has been an 

issue about this? 

Mr. GRUTERS. Yes, Senator, I am, and certainly reliability is critical in making sure that we retain customers. 

We need to have open communication and strong collaboration 

with our partners to make sure that we get some of these issues 

worked out so we can improve our on-time performance. 

39 

Senator WICKER. OK. Well, I thank you very much. I’ve got, Mr. 

Chairman, I’ve got questions about public safety and highway safety and the clock has ticked along. 

So I will submit those for the record. The witnesses should be 

aware that I’m just as interested in their issues, so I’ll submit 

those. 

Thank you for your indulgence. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Moran is up next. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Ms. King, it’s good to see you again. Thank you for your testimony in front of our Subcommittee and I look forward to continuing to work with you in that regard. 

I’m going to direct my efforts this morning to Mr. Gruters, as 

well. 

You and I had a conversation prior to the hearing and I appreciate that conversation, but I want to highlight for you a problem 

that I’m taking very seriously that’s developed just in the last few 

weeks that involves Amtrak and the Southwest Chief. 

The Southwest Chief makes 31 stops between Chicago and Los 

Angeles. Those stops include of concern today places in Kansas, 

Colorado, and New Mexico, and our communities and our states, 

those three states, have over a long period of time pursued efforts 

with BNSF, the Class 1 Carrier, and Amtrak to develop and maintain, to improve the quality of the rail in those three states. 

It has been a cooperative effort with Amtrak and it has involved 

communities in my state, such as Garden City and Dodge City, and 

we’ve now been successful in acquiring three TIGER Grants beginning in 2014 and the most recent one was just announced by the 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 

So we have been working with the railroad and Amtrak to improve the maintenance of those rail lines and improving therefore 

the quality of Amtrak service. 

Unfortunately and disturbing to me, Amtrak administration, the 

leadership has announced they will not complete their part of the 

bargain on the last TIGER Grant and while there can be, as I indicated to you, a discussion about the value of long-term rail service 

through Amtrak in this country, that can be a philosophical discussion, it can be a practical one. 

In my view, there can be no value discussion in keeping one’s 

word, and in my view, Amtrak has reneged on what it committed 

to do and it has raised the attention of my colleagues from our 

three states, but I’m of the belief that Federal agencies, just like 

individuals, have a responsibility to behave with integrity, and I 

don’t see that at the moment. 

I want to submit for the record here in just a minute an op-ed 

piece from Joe Boardman, who is the retired CEO and President 

of Amtrak. He retired in 2016 but a long history in providing leadership in the rail world. 

His point in his column is, ‘‘Amtrak has informed elected officials 

in Colfax County, New Mexico, that it will not provide its match 

40 

for a recently awarded congressional grant intended to sustain the 

operation of the Southwest Chief.’’ 

This, I’m quoting Mr. Boardman, ‘‘This directly undermines a 

Federal grant program that,’’ while he was Amtrak President, ‘‘he 

brokered with BNSF to improve the route used by the Southwest 

Chief to benefit Amtrak and freight trains.’’ 

He says, ‘‘A pattern is emerging of Amtrak management and its 

Board of Directors seeking on its own and without public input and 

transparency to hog all Amtrak Federal financial assistance to be 

used elsewhere, to shorten Amtrak’s long distance routes so as to 

shift costs to states, ultimately destroying Amtrak’s national interconnectivity. The Southwest Chief issue is a battleground whose 

outcome will determine the fate of America’s national interconnected rail passenger network, highlighting or heightening the 

importance of this issue, which suggests to me that there may be 

a change of attitude and approach at the Amtrak Board and its 

senior leadership that would be contrary to the congressional mandate about national rail passenger service.’’ 

So, Mr. Gruters, let me just use this as an opportunity first to 

highlight the problem and then to ask you for any thoughts or suggestions you might have, should you be confirmed as a Member of 

that Board, how do you react to what I have told you this morning 

and before we met and now in this hearing? 

Mr. GRUTERS. Thank you very much, Senator, and certainly from 

what you’re describing, it seems to be very frustrating and what I 

will tell you is the unique thing about being a Member of the Board 

of Amtrak is you essentially have a fiduciary responsibility as a 

corporate officer to the company, but we have our mission set forth 

by Congress. 

So I will look forward to working with you and your team and 

the Senate to try to make sure that agreements are upheld and 

that we do the right thing at the end of the day. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Gruters, let me also highlight for you that 

this past week, Amtrak announced that they were eliminating the 

only position in Topeka, a ticket agent, one employee of Amtrak, 

the only person that works there. That position is being eliminated, 

and I would ask your cooperation in working with me now before 

your confirmation and if you become a Member of the Board to pursue this additional reduction in service. 

I’ve been involved in trying to help save the Postal Service and 

it seems to me too often that we have a circumstance in which we 

reduce the service, expecting then there to be better days. 

You cannot reduce service and expect customers to arrive at your 

doors and Amtrak is demonstrating that in my view in both instances. 

Mr. Chairman, I’d ask unanimous consent to have the letter of 

the op-ed piece of Mr. Boardman submitted for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

41 

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/intercity/amtrak-where-is-the-public-input-where-is-the-transparency/# 

Railway Age—May 10, 2018 

AMTRAK: WHERE IS THE PUBLIC INPUT? WHERE IS THE TRANSPARENCY? 

Written by Joseph A. Boardman 

Having spent much of my productive life at the state and Federal levels observing, studying, regulating and then leading a rail management team, I am appalled 

with what increasingly appears a unilateral violation of the public trust by Amtrak’s 

current leadership to dismantle our interconnected, intercity rail passenger network, 

beginning with hollowing out of its long-distance passenger train service. 

Amtrak is not a privately held corporation whose fate is to be determined by a 

few individuals behind closed doors. It was created by the people and for the people 

and is funded by taxpayers who help to supplement Amtrak’s fare box revenue. Amtrak provides a cherished public service, with opinion polls repeatedly validating 

support for its existence and even expansion. 

The role of Amtrak leadership is to operate the railroad and its various lines of 

business safely, efficiently and in accordance with congressionally approved statutes. It is the role of congressional lawmakers who answer to the public to determine the fate of Amtrak, and only through a transparent legislative process. 

From materials I have seen submitted to congressional staff, Amtrak management 

has begun surgical communications in a way that does not provide a transparent 

discussion of what management is doing or intending to do. Quite the opposite of 

being transparent, Amtrak management is limiting the substance of public briefings, denying journalists access to relevant management officials and making decisions in isolation. 

Evidence points to a covert effort to divide Amtrak’s political constituencies and 

create distrust and discord. Consider a current effort by Amtrak management to 

convince opinion leaders and decision makers that providing service via the Southwest Chief passenger train, which makes 31 stops between Chicago and Los Angeles, is somehow too costly. 

Confirming this intent to eliminate the service, Amtrak has informed elected officials in Colfax County, N.M., that it will not provide its match for a recently awarded congressional grant intended to sustain operation of the Southwest Chief. This 

directly undermines a Federal grant program that, while Amtrak president, I personally brokered with BNSF CEO Matt Rose to improve the BNSF route used by 

the Southwest Chief—a joint benefit to freight trains and Amtrak. 

Additionally, Amtrak management is engaged in ‘‘weaponizing’’ safety to attack 

more broadly Amtrak’s long-distance network. Under a fac ̧ade of ‘‘safety first,’’ there 

are threats to discontinue Amtrak operated passenger trains by Dec. 31, 2018, wherever Positive Train Control is not installed and operating. That is neither acceptable 

nor responsible. 

Yet on route segments—some 100-miles or longer—where the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) has decided to exclude a requirement for PTC, Amtrak responsibly intends to utilize a highly respected Federal Aviation Administration safety program to assess risks. 

Certainly, commuter carriers operating in the congested Northeast will continue 

operating on non-PTC equipped track beyond the Dec. 31, 2018, deadline for its installation because other FRA safety measures will govern operation. 

Halting New Jersey Transit or Metro-North commuter railroads because a PTC 

deadline cannot be met and other safety measures are in place would be ridiculous. 

If commuter carriers in the Northeast can continue operating beyond the Dec. 31, 

2018, PTC deadline, then certainly the Southwest Chief can, also. 

Indeed, there is additional mitigation for safety risks, such as Automatic Train 

Stop or even solar powered switch position indicators. And, yes, it will take time 

and funding, but neither Amtrak management nor its board of directors has made 

clear whether service would be continued while those mitigations are funded and 

completed. If it is not made clear by July, then Amtrak management and its board 

is validating my allegation of ‘‘weaponizing’’ safety to attack Amtrak’s national 

interconnected passenger train network. 

Make no mistake: I am strongly in support of Positive Train Control technology, 

and my record as the Nation’s rail safety regulator speaks for itself. Safety conscious 

railroaders know that PTC is not an off-the-shelf technology, and where the FRA 

has allowed extensions and exclusions, there are available safety mitigations. 

A pattern is emerging of Amtrak management and its board of directors seeking, 

on its own and without public input and transparency, to hog all Amtrak Federal 

financial assistance to complete Northeast Corridor (NEC) rail projects such as the 

42 

Gateway Program, to procure new ‘‘city pair’’ trainsets for off-NEC operation, and 

to shorten Amtrak long-distance routes so as to shift costs to states, ultimately destroying Amtrak’s national interconnectivity. 

I think current Amtrak management and its board of directors have drawn a line 

in the sand at the foot of Raton Pass, targeting the Southwest Chief as their first— 

but not last—long-distance train to target for cutting. 

The Southwest Chief issue is the battleground whose outcome will determine the 

fate of American’s national interconnected rail passenger network. Said more simply, the battle is Raton Pass vs. Gateway. The history of public policy toward Amtrak is that you cannot have one without the other. 

Congressional leaders have long asserted that without support for Amtrak’s longdistance trains, Federal support for the Northeast Corridor will evaporate. 

While there is eminent good reason to fund Northeast Corridor projects, there is 

equivalent good reason for preserving daily train service to, for example, Dodge 

City, Kan., La Junta, Colo., and Havre, Mont., where the economic impact is significant and other options non-existent. 

Ignoring the political process and unilaterally abandoning service linking Denver 

with Albuquerque and Los Angeles is equally absurd and would not survive a transparent public process were it allowed. 

Joe Boardman retired in 2016 after eight years as Amtrak president and CEO, 

making him second only to W. Graham Claytor Jr. as Amtrak’s longest serving 

CEO. Previously (June 2005–December 2008), he was President George W. Bush’s 

Federal Railroad Administrator. Earlier, Boardman was the longest serving Commissioner of Transportation in New York State history. In 2014, he was Railway 

Age’s 51st Railroader of the Year. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Gruters, thank you. 

Mr. GRUTERS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Moran. 

Senator Peters. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Chairman Thune. 

Thank you to each of our nominees for your willingness to serve 

our country and, if confirmed, I look forward to working with all 

three of you on these critical issues. 

Acting Administrator King, you and I discussed specifically how 

the future of self-driving vehicles holds tremendous promise for 

safety, mobility, sustainability. 

As you know, Chairman Thune and I, along with a broad bipartisan group of colleagues, have been working very hard on the AV 

START Act, which was passed out of this committee unanimously. 

We hope to get action on the Floor soon. 

In that law, we are expecting NHTSA to implement the bill, to 

oversee it, and move very quickly, and certainly hope I have your 

commitment to do that. 

Ms. KING. You have my commitment to obey the laws issued by 

Congress, yes. 

Senator PETERS. Plus, from our discussion, it’s something that 

you believe will enhance safety dramatically in this country and 

why speed is critical. 

Ms. KING. Yes, 37,461 of our friends and neighbors died in traffic 

crashes in 2016. That is why NHTSA would like to assure safety 

but remove barriers to adoption of advanced safety technologies 

that can reduce the fatalities and injuries on our roadways. 

Senator PETERS. All right. Thank you. 

43 

Ms. King, I also believe the U.S. is uniquely positioned to lead 

the world in the development of connected vehicles related to AV, 

to be able to have those kinds of connections. 

There are significant connected vehicle investments underway 

currently that will need to move forward even before we get to fully 

self-driving, fully autonomous. 

So my question to you is, do you support and will you actively 

advocate for preserving the full 75 megahertz of the 5.9 gigahertz 

spectrum for V2V as well as V2X technologies? 

Ms. KING. Yes, I do hope that the safety spectrum will be preserved for its use in safety applications in transportation. 

Senator PETERS. Could you also please provide a status update 

on NHTSA’s ongoing review of the comments that were received in 

response to the Vehicle to Vehicle Rule Notice of Proposed Rulemaking? 

Ms. KING. Absolutely. There were, as I recall, 460 comments. I 

actually do read the comments submitted into the docket, although 

I have not read all of them. 

We have in response to those comments. We’re pursuing further 

research with respect to some technical areas. In particular, there’s 

research on interference this month, and I continue in discussions, 

both at the policy level and at the career staff technical level, with 

my colleagues at NTIA. I’ve also spoken with FCC. 

Senator PETERS. I think there are some folks that have been very 

concerned about the lack of direction from NHTSA on this issue 

and some of the clarity coming from NHTSA and that’s actually 

negatively impacting the market. 

In fact, I think there’s a signal to other countries that in deploying these critical life-saving technologies, that the United States is 

behind. 

When do you expect NHTSA to finalize the rule? 

Ms. KING. As I mentioned, we have some research in progress 

that we would like to move forward on first. The Department of 

Transportation’s position is that we don’t want to pick winners or 

losers. So we are looking to make sure that we understand the 

technologies and their use and any technical issues that could be 

considerations in deploying safety applications for transportation. 

You have very much my commitment to work on this. My colleague at NTIA is a former colleague from our time at House Energy and Commerce Committee. We’re both excited to have the 

chance to work together and to move forward expeditiously. We 

both prioritize safety on our roadways. 

Senator PETERS. Well, we’ve heard the term ‘‘expeditiously’’ for 

a long time now. 

Do you actually have a deadline or a time that you are hoping 

to achieve this goal? 

Ms. KING. I hope to have something I can share with you soon 

when I come to meet with you with my colleague from NTIA. As 

I mentioned, later this month we have research in the field with 

respect to interference, which is an important feature of the use of 

spectrum for safety technologies. 

As you know, if there’s interference, the safety technologies may 

not work. So the research is ongoing as a science- and data-driven 

agency with many engineers. We need to make sure we get it right 

44 

and so I will apologize if it has not moved more quickly during my 

seven and a half month tenure but you have my commitment to get 

it right, to have the safety technologies in the field that will save 

lives. 

Senator PETERS. As we’re talking timelines, go back to the testing of this 5.9 gigahertz, which is critical to bring these safety technologies forward, as you know, that’s been allocated for autos. This 

is about life-saving types of communications, not a faster download 

of a movie. 

This is about saving people’s lives and so there has been a commitment from this committee and members of this committee to try 

to move that along quicker. In fact, Chairman Thune sent a letter 

to the FCC and DOT and Department of Commerce asking the 

testing to be completed, I think, at the end of 2016. 

In June 2016, the FCC published a public notice and had three 

phases of testing that were to be completed by January 2017. Since 

then, there has been very little transparency regarding the status 

of this testing and, quite frankly, I think this committee is being 

ignored when it comes to these timelines for this testing of critical 

technology. 

You know, I’m out of time right now, but I have a series of questions for the record that I would hope to get a very quick response 

to. This is something that we need to have some certainty as to 

where we are and when we will find an end date. 

So I will be submitting those for the record, Mr. Chairman, and 

when I have your commitment to have a response within a week 

or two. 

Ms. KING. Absolutely, and I look forward to working with you. 

This is very important to me, as well. 

Senator PETERS. Great. Thank you. 

Ms. KING. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Peters, and as he pointed 

out, Senator Peters and I believe that the introduction of autonomous vehicles done the right way will dramatically improve and 

promote safety in this country and so I hope we can move forward 

with that legislation and hopefully ultimately you’ll have the opportunity to implement it. 

Next up is Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to all of you and congratulations on your nomination. 

Ms. King, are you familiar with the letter that I sent to you 

joined by Senator Markey the day before yesterday regarding keyless ignition systems and the deaths that they are causing around 

the country? 

Ms. KING. Yes, and thank you for that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. As you are aware, the New York Times 

has reported that there have been at least, I underscore at least, 

28 deaths and 45 injuries linked to carbon monoxide poisoning due 

to these keyless ignition systems. Drivers leave the cars running, 

taking the key with them and the engine continues to operate literally poisoning them. 

I’d like your commitment that NHTSA will launch an investigation into all of these 28 deaths and any others that may have occurred. 

45 

Ms. KING. Senator, we actually may have some materials on 

some of those. As you know, it’s heart-breaking but hundreds of 

Americans die from carbon monoxide poisoning each year because 

of combustion in confined spaces. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, that’s no excuse, though, for this—— 

Ms. KING. No, no,—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—design flaw. 

Ms. KING.—it’s not. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I regard it as a design flaw and it’s potentially fixed very easily, virtually costlessly, less than $5 a car. 

I’d like your commitment that you will demand that automakers 

install that fix. 

Ms. KING. I thank you for raising the issue to raise public awareness. The research that NHTSA has performed to date has suggested a number of causes to the carbon monoxide poisonings that 

we’ve seen. 

I would be delighted to sit and share that information with you. 

We will do—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Are you saying that—— 

Ms. KING.—everything to address the—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—the New York Times report was incorrect 

in attributing those deaths to carbon monoxide poisoning caused by 

the engine continuing to run? 

Ms. KING. The New York Times has not provided me with the information they were using for their report. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, this is a very simple—I really think, 

given the limitations of time and literally the fatal consequences 

from this design flaw that it’s really a pretty simple straightforward answer that I’m asking from you. 

Your commitment that you will demand that these fixes be installed, your commitment that you will complete rulemaking as 

soon as possible, your commitment that you will raise public 

awareness, those three steps, will you commit to them? 

Ms. KING. Absolutely—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Yes or no? 

Ms. KING. Absolutely on Number 3. These issues, carbon monoxide poisoning in homes are generally not reported to NHTSA. We 

are very proactive in finding the information and learning what we 

can and pursuing any defect of an automotive nature that we can. 

We are responsible for pursuing any automotive safety issue. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Would you agree with me that this design 

flaw is a defect that should be repaired in every individual not only 

because of carbon monoxide poisoning, but also the dangers of rollovers and other potential deaths or injuries that may result from 

an engine that continues to run when the driver has left it with 

the key and that design flaw or defect can be corrected by an automatic engine shutoff or by a much clearer warning? Wouldn’t you 

agree? 

Ms. KING. Senator, there are several things inter-related there. 

There has been a recall on the roll-away feature with push-button 

ignition and separately, yes, NHTSA, whenever it hears of a safety 

defect or a potential safety defect, more than 6,000 reported each 

and every month, we look into it and we act where appropriate, 

where the facts and the science take us. 

46 

You have my commitment, you in fact have the commitment of 

each and every man and woman at NHTSA who do this each and 

every day, and I understand that the article was very important to 

raise awareness and I’m appreciative of that. 

The facts are not necessarily in my hands to commit to those 

being what they may have been represented as, but I will track it 

down and I look forward to following up with you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. How many deaths due to this defective 

feature of those cars are you aware of? 

Ms. KING. Actually, the CDC reports hundreds of deaths due to 

things like space heaters. It might be people with a keyed ignition 

pre-heating their car. So it’s not only push button, it’s very often 

keyed ignition. It’s very often because someone is doing automotive 

maintenance in their—they may be working on their car servicing 

it and leaving the engine running while they adjust things. So it’s 

a problem associated with running a car in a confined space. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So you will commit at least—and I apologize for interrupting, but I am running out of time, in fact have run 

out of time. You will commit that NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation will begin an investigation, yes? 

Ms. KING. We will continue to scrutinize the facts and acting as 

we are allowed within the law, yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I’m hoping that’s a yes. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator Nelson has a quick question he wants to get in. Senator 

Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. And then I have to go to another meeting. 

Ms. King, here’s another example of a defect in the automobile 

industry. You are already at the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. So you are, if confirmed, invested with the responsibility of trying to make sure that folks are safe. 

A lot of police departments around the country have Ford Explorers. Well, what they’re finding is the models between 2011 and 

2017, have carbon monoxide poisoning coming into the vehicles. So 

obviously we need to get this stopped. It’s affecting our police departments. They’ve had to take all of these assets and remove them 

from their fleets. 

Will you find out why it’s taking so long to get this corrected and 

where there are more than a million drivers in the country with 

these Ford Explorers, particularly police officers who are driving 

those cars every day? We need to find out if their cars are safe to 

drive. Will you bring that to a conclusion? 

Ms. KING. I’m happy to provide more information on that ongoing 

recall. They’ve made great progress, and I’m looking forward to 

sharing more information, yes. 

Senator NELSON. I wish you could just say a simple yes or no. 

It would be so much more comforting to know that it’s not going 

to be the fox guarding the hen house, that instead it’s going to be 

the farmer guarding the hen house, the hen house being the driving public of America. It would be so nice to have you just say ‘‘yes, 

I’m going to get to the bottom of these traffic problems and automobile problems that are causing deaths and injuries.’’ 

47 

Ms. KING. Yes, I’m going to get to the bottom of these automobile 

and traffic problems that are causing deaths and injuries. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

Senator Cortez Masto up next. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Welcome. Congratulations on your nominations. Welcome to your 

family, as well. It’s great to see everyone here. 

Ms. Homendy, let me start with you, if that’s all right. Obviously 

you have an accomplished background in rail and safety issues and 

given that, you are acutely aware that there have been various examples of concerning derailments with crude oil by rail and hazardous materials in recent years. 

It’s no surprise I’m from Nevada. I’m deeply concerned with any 

effort to dramatically expand the movement of spent nuclear fuel 

and high-level radioactive waste on our Nation’s rail and highway 

network. 

I’ve previously submitted a report into the Committee record that 

underscores that this hazardous material would be traveling in 

close proximity to tens if not possibly hundreds of millions of Americans, including through 329 congressional districts, and a vast majority of the Lower 48 states would all be impacted by shipments 

to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. 

Nearly all of these folks won’t have any idea when, where, or 

how much is traveling through their communities, and to give you 

a sense of this scale, this project would require the shipment of 

waste from 76 sites in 9,500 rail casks within 2,800 trains, 2,650 

trucks hauling one case each, to Yucca Mountain, for over 50 years. 

But it is the lack of the fool-proof safety of our infrastructure 

that I’m concerned with and everyone else in this country should 

be, as well. 

And so my question to you, is the public provided with information on the timing of shipments and hazardous wastes moving 

through their community? Would the public know that? 

Ms. HOMENDY. No, Senator. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. And so under the current system, highly 

dangerous radioactive waste would be moving on a railway down 

the street and families across the country would have no idea that 

that is occurring, is that accurate? 

Ms. HOMENDY. That’s accurate. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. And can you speak to what other rail 

and labor safety regulatory efforts have been legislated on or that 

even have been recommended by the NTSB that have not been put 

into effect yet? 

Ms. HOMENDY. Yes, there are a number of measures that have 

not been implemented yet. Some were in the 2008 bill, PTC being 

one of them, fatigue management plans, and certainly minimum 

training standards for rail workers, but even with all of those implemented, you could not engineer out 100 percent the risk of 

transporting nuclear waste, and 75 to 90 percent will be going by 

rail. So if an accident did occur, it could be devastating. 

48 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Ms. King, I want to talk to you about an issue that has come to 

my attention because I’ve recently received letters, a number of 

them, but this one has been signed by a number of groups, including the League of Conservation Voters and Union of Concerned Scientists, and in the letter, they state, ‘‘The recent leap to joint draft 

proposal for light-duty vehicle standards for fuel economy and 

greenhouse gas emissions shows that NHTSA, alongside the EPA, 

intends to significantly weaken the existing standards through 

model year 2026. 

This proposal relies on unjustified cost analysis and data, flawed 

safety assumptions, and blatant disregard for energy conservation 

and climate change. This proposal would increase oil consumption 

by 206 billion gallons of gasoline between the years 2020 and 2050. 

Further, it will put the American industry behind in the global 

market where many of our largest competitors, like China and 

India, are moving forward with more stringent standards.’’ 

Now Nevadans and all Americans want more fuel-efficient cars 

to save them money. In fact, a recent Consumer Union survey 

found nearly nine out of 10 consumers want automakers to continue to raise fuel efficiency, and on this issue of CAFE standards, 

in fact, I literally have been visited by automakers who recently 

came in and we talked on a number of issues and they underscored 

to me that they don’t want to have this form of a rollback in CAFE 

standards. 

Do you believe this is in the interests of the U.S. to reduce our 

use of oil? 

Ms. KING. No, Senator. There was a lot there. There is an ongoing rulemaking that I’m working with my colleagues at the Environmental Protection Agency on. There is not a proposal yet. 

We will propose a rulemaking soon for public comment period. I 

have seen the press reports you reference. I’ve not seen the documents that they believe may have been leaked, but I can assure 

you that both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

and the EPA are working together on a data- and science-driven 

process and look forward to a transparent process and receiving 

public comment. 

The letters you’ve received, I would encourage those commenters 

to participate vigorously in the process to make sure that this very 

important rulemaking is the best possible in its outcome. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Can I ask you, do you agree that keeping the one national program together is important for industry 

certainty? 

Ms. KING. Absolutely. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

I notice my time is up. Thank you very much. 

Ms. KING. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto. 

Next up is Senator Hassan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and good 

morning to the nominees. Congratulations on your nominations, 

49 

and congratulations to your families, as well. It is a team effort 

when you do this kind of work and we are very, very grateful for 

your interest and willingness to do it. 

Ms. King, I have a couple of questions for you. I enjoyed our 

meeting very much the other day, and I enjoyed the conversation. 

I wanted to follow up with you regarding the issue of autonomous vehicles or AVs, as we are learning to call them. It is clear 

that autonomous vehicles hold great promise for reducing crashes, 

deaths, and injuries on our nation’s highways. 

However, during the 2016 Los Angeles Auto Show, an AV could 

not operate because it could not read faded lane markings on the 

road. It seems that significant upgrades might be needed on our 

Nation’s roads to support these vehicles. 

What is NHTSA doing to ensure that our infrastructure is ready 

for AVs, and will you collaborate with other agencies to ensure necessary upgrades are made before AVs are widely deployed? 

Ms. KING. Yes, I’d like to outline a few things I’m doing. 

First of all, we are implementing at NHTSA a Vision for Safety 

2.0. Last September, the guidance that was issued to allow for 

transparency around these technologies that are undergoing innovation and testing. 

It’s important to remember that there are no automated driving 

systems or self-driving cars sold in America today. This is a technology which is being developed and tested. 

A Vision for Safety would allow for transparency into how each 

of the manufacturers are assuring safety, to make sure that the 

manufacturers and developers tell us how they ensure that they’re 

not crashing into things, protect the occupants, get where they’re 

going, and obey traffic laws. That’s important, I think, to each and 

every one of us. 

We’re also identifying where our existing regulatory structure 

would put a hindrance to safety by having barriers to adopting 

more innovative technologies. 

We’re making expeditious movement on the funding. I thank 

Congress for the $6.7 million in funding that is now being applied 

to partnerships in research to assure safety in these technologies, 

in particular with Virginia Tech University. 

We’re partnering with industry and with SA to explore functional 

safety/system safety software, and to identify the definition of safe 

in this new technology 

Senator HASSAN. Well, I thank you for that, and those are all important developments. 

I think the other issue, though, is how do you collaborate, both 

across Federal agencies and with states and local governments, to 

make sure that their infrastructure is such that it can be used effectively with AVs? If lane markings on a road are so faded that 

an AV cannot read them, then that is a real problem, right? 

So I think what I would like to do as I move on to my next question, is ask that you reach back out to my office and help me understand what kind of collaboration NHTSA is looking at doing 

with all the various agencies and governing bodies that impact infrastructure. Does that sound like something you can commit to? 

Ms. KING. I need to tell you about it. Thank you. 

Senator HASSAN. OK. Thank you. 

50 

I also understand, Ms. King, that you have not spoken publicly 

about your views on climate change. It is an important issue to the 

NHTSA Administrator role because, if confirmed, you would be 

dealing with various issues, including CAFE standards that will require you to strike a balance between industry needs and the needs 

of our country and our environment. 

Do you agree with the scientists and experts who overwhelmingly 

agree that human-caused climate change is real and needs to be 

addressed? 

Ms. KING. As an automotive and traffic safety regulator, you 

have my commitment to be data-driven and science-driven and 

thoughtful and transparent in all actions and where it is necessary 

for us to consider climate impacts, which is very important to everyone, I will do so, relying on the experts. I rely on engineers, attorneys, and others. 

Senator HASSAN. And I am going to ask you, do you agree that 

human-caused climate change is real and needs to be addressed? 

There is overwhelming data and scientific evidence, including a 

vast body of scientific work, that says that it does. 

Ms. KING. I agree that it’s very important for experts to speak 

on the issue. I apologize. I’m not a climate scientist, but I have 

great respect for the discipline. 

Senator HASSAN. And, Ms. King, I will thank you for that. I am 

not a climate scientist either, and I am very comfortable saying 

that the overwhelming amount of evidence that I read, and have 

read, over the course of my time both as a private citizen and as 

a public servant not only suggests but confirms that climate change 

is real, and I am a little bit concerned, and I think other people 

will be too, that you seem unwilling to acknowledge that the evidence is there. 

So thank you. We will continue this conversation. 

Ms. KING. Thank you. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hassan. 

Senator Gardner is up next. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

the witnesses for your time and testimony today and your willingness to serve the country. 

Mr. Gruters, do you believe that keeping your word is important, 

correct? 

Mr. GRUTERS. Yes, Senator. 

Senator GARDNER. Do you believe that keeping a commitment is 

important, correct? 

Mr. GRUTERS. Yes. 

Senator GARDNER. You believe that keeping the commitment that 

is made by an organization that you represent is important, correct? 

Mr. GRUTERS. Yes, Senator. 

Senator GARDNER. As a Director on Amtrak’s Board of Directors, 

will you support honoring commitments that Amtrak has made? 

51 

Mr. GRUTERS. Without—thank you, Senator. Without being on 

the Board, without looking at the specific commitments, all I can 

say is that I will do everything I can as a Board Member to work 

with you and your team and to keep whatever commitments they 

did make, to make sure that they’re followed through on. 

Senator GARDNER. So let me just—that’s a pretty good yes or no 

opportunity here. 

Mr. GRUTERS. Yes. 

Senator GARDNER. If Amtrak makes a commitment, you will 

work to uphold that commitment? 

Mr. GRUTERS. Yes, sir. 

Senator GARDNER. Well, here’s a commitment that Amtrak made. 

Amtrak strongly supports this application, referring to the Southwest Chief, as a continuation of the already-funded portions of the 

Southwest Chief Route Improvement Project under TIGER VI and 

TIGER VII. 

So they made a commitment. They supported that Amtrak is prepared to assist the states and BNSF in developing and completing 

such an agreement. So Amtrak made this commitment to provide 

$3 million as part of the TIGER IX Grant. 

Do you agree Amtrak should follow through with that commitment? 

Mr. GRUTERS. Yes, and although that I’m not on the Board yet, 

so I don’t know all the particulars of that specific—— 

Senator GARDNER. Well, they made it. 

Mr. GRUTERS. If they made a commitment, the answer is yes, 

they should follow through on the commitment. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that I be allowed to submit this letter 

of Amtrak, October 13, 2017, with their commitment for the record. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK) 

October 13, 2017 

BILL SAUBLE, Chairman, 

Colfax County Commission, 

Raton, NM. 

Dear Mr. Sauble: 

Dear Chairman Sauble and Colfax County Commissioners; 

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) would like to take this opportunity to express its support for the Southwest Chief Route Improvement Project 

(‘‘the Project’’) grant application you are submitting in response to the Notice of 

Funding Opportunity for the United States Department of Transportation’s 

(USDOT) National Infrastructure Investments under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, a program also referred to as ‘‘TIGER Discretionary Grants.’’ This 

Notice announced the availability of $500 million to be awarded by USDOT for infrastructure projects that will have a significant impact on the nation, a metropolitan area, or a region. 

Amtrak strongly supports this application as a continuation of the already funded 

portions of the Southwest Chief Route Improvement Project under TIGER VI and 

VII. AS you know, Amtrak, along with numerous municipalities, the BNSF, and 

other local community organizations, has supported previous applications with a financial contribution to the Project. Amtrak will offer a $3 million match towards 

the project costs if the grant application for the requested amount is successful. Before Amtrak will fulfill this contribution, a comprehensive financial plan and accomVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:39 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57803.TXT JACKIE
52 

panying commitments by relevant states and BNSF for the remainder of the infrastructure investments and associated additional maintenance costs for this route in 

New Mexico must be completed. Amtrak is prepared to assist the states and BNSF 

in developing and completing such an agreement. 

Based on the information made available to us regarding the project’s eligibility, 

and subject to the development of such project-specific agreements as USDOT and 

Amtrak may require, we strongly support this application as a potential candidate 

for funding. It is Amtrak’s expectation that, prior to the obligation of grant funds 

for this project, the County of Colfax, New Mexico, BNSF and Amtrak will enter 

into appropriate agreements setting forth our roles and responsibilities with respect 

to the project, with terms acceptable to Amtrak 

The advancement of the Southwest Chief Improvement Project will not only significantly improve our Nation’s transportation infrastructure, but will also contribute to the economic competitiveness of the United States. We appreciate your 

leadership in filling this application and look forward to working with you on this 

and future opportunities to improve intercity passenger rail transportation. 

Sincerely, 

WILLIAM N. FEIDT, 

Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer. 

Senator GARDNER. And I just appreciate that because the grant 

was given. It was announced. It was announced to us and I’d appreciate your commitment to that grant and the commitment that 

Amtrak made. So thank you. Thank you for that. 

I look forward to working with you on many issues as it relates 

to the Southwest Chief improvement. You’ve got Kansas, Colorado, 

New Mexico that have made significant improvements, commitments of state dollars, Federal dollars that have been going to it, 

very important. 

I’d also ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that a letter from 

the Rail Passengers Association be submitted for the record. This 

talks about the fact that Southwest Chief’s ridership is up 14 percent from 8 years ago in 2009. It talks about the Chief’s performing 

in the top part of the routes that Amtrak has. It talks about the 

concerns that some of the decisions that Amtrak may be making. 

Just ask this be submitted for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

53 


516RAIL1.eps
54 


516RAIL2.eps
55 


516RAIL3.eps
56 


516RAIL4.eps
57 


516RAIL5.eps
58 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do appreciate, Mr. Gruters, your commitment to the commitment that Amtrak has made. 

Ms. King, talked a little bit about the conversation we had in our 

office. In your written testimony, you mentioned that in March, 

NHTSA hosted a summit to launch an initiative aimed at curbing 

drug-impaired driving on our nation’s roadways. 

As you know, Colorado, like many other states, has moved to legalize recreational marijuana. With that, our state has sought to 

ensure the safety of our communities, including on our roadways. 

We know that when an individual uses marijuana, they become 

impaired. However, it seems that there are still many unanswered 

questions regarding how and when that impairment is realized, 

particularly as it relates to motorists, and that we have more work 

to do to equip law enforcement with the tools to identify and prove 

impairment, the testing that occurs, and some of the challenges 

around finding the right science to make that happen. 

Could you share with me and the Committee how NHTSA’s 

working to curb drug-impaired driving, specifically marijuana-impaired driving? 

Ms. KING. Absolutely. And thank you for that question, Senator. 

It’s a very important issue and emerging throughout the United 

States. 

There is research ongoing and supported by NHTSA with respect 

to the tools that might help identify and provide chemical evidence, 

such as testing oral fluids or saliva, for the presence of THC or 

marijuana. 

There’s also research being supported that will allow field sobriety tests that may identify impairment from drugs or substances 

other than alcohol. 

In addition, we’re working very closely with the states. This 

being a highway safety issue, it came to me from my conversations 

with states, the experts in our communities who are seeing this on 

our highways. Some of them have already innovated either laboratory protocols for testing or other tools that they can use. 

We have the ongoing Drug Recognition Expert Program that 

NHTSA is very excited about to supply peace officers with training 

to be able to better identify the signs and symptoms of a drug and 

non-alcohol impairment. 

So there are many pieces of work in progress. We look forward 

to looking back many years from now and saying we remember 

when that was a problem but we will have hopefully made the 

same progress as we’ve been making with alcohol and providing 

the tools to the field. 

Senator GARDNER. Great. Thank you, and I would just ask for 

your commitment to work with myself and others on the Committee facing the same situation we do in Colorado, how to deal 

with it and how to move forward with these kind of solutions. 

Ms. KING. Yes, it would be my honor to do so. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Ms. King. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Gardner. 

Senator Cantwell. 

59 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Gruters, congratulations on your nomination. I hope you are 

aware that at the end of 2017, we had a horrific Amtrak derailment in Washington which killed three people and put I–5 into a 

devastation of debris and shut down. 

So I wanted to ask you on the important issue of positive train 

control, will you work with Amtrak to continue the PTC system before the deadline of the end of the year? 

Mr. GRUTERS. Senator, no question, I think safety is the top priority of Amtrak. It’s my top priority. PTC is important technology. 

I think it’s the most important issue facing Amtrak and it needs 

to be baseline. It needs to be the standard and not something we 

work up to but what everybody is based off of, and I will tell you 

that the Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson has done an amazing job 

at safety. 

He has already hired a chief safety officer. He’s putting in place 

a safety management system, and I think a lot of these safety 

issues, hopefully with the high level of scrutiny and news that’s 

come about as a result of these recent accidents, has led to Richard 

Anderson really taking an active role in this. 

Senator CANTWELL. So you’ll continue to work with the partners 

and everybody to push them to meet that deadline? 

Mr. GRUTERS. Yes, Senator. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

So on the issue of engineers and conductors and adequate training, I mean obviously PTC is going to play an important role, but 

do we need to continue to have adequate training and familiarity 

with routes? 

Mr. GRUTERS. There’s no question that plays into PTC and also 

goes back to the fact that the CEO Richard Anderson has already 

put in place a chief safety officer. They’re implementing the safety 

management system at Amtrak and I think that was an industrywide practice that hopefully will solve some of these issues long 

term and on the short term. 

Senator CANTWELL. And you’re saying that that person’s responsibility is that conductor and engineer awareness? Is that what 

you’re saying? 

Mr. GRUTERS. The chief safety officer I think is helping to implement the safety management system which takes into account all 

these issues. 

Senator CANTWELL. OK. Ms. Homendy, is that correct? Is that 

the right way? 

Ms. HOMENDY. Yes. 

Senator CANTWELL. We’ve had this unbelievable reduction in 

aviation fatalities from 1998 to 2008, like, I think, 50 percent or 

something like that, but on the global—this is U.S. versus the global. 

So what do we need to do to make sure that the larger safety 

for aviation is there on a global basis? 

Ms. HOMENDY. Thank you for the question, Senator. As you 

know, the last 14 years I’ve spent focusing on rail, pipelines, and 

60 

hazardous materials, and I’m very eager to learn more about aviation safety. 

I know that there were some recent incidents and the NTSB is 

investigating the one involving Southwest. So I need to be very 

careful about what I say so I don’t prejudice that investigation. 

But what I will say, if confirmed, I look forward to working with 

you and I know that Senator Nelson had recently sent a letter to 

the DOT IG to review FAA’s oversight of aircraft maintenance and 

I very much look forward to reviewing those findings and, if confirmed, I look forward to working with you and the Committee on 

aviation safety issues. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. You’re reminding me I was supposed to, on behalf of the Ranking Member, enter into the record 

some letters from our colleagues in the House regarding some of 

the nominees and their testimony. 

If I could enter—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

61 


516APR1.eps
62 


516APR2.eps
63 


516APR3.eps
64 


516APR4.eps
65 


516APR5.eps
66 


516APR6.eps
67 


516APR7.eps
68 


516APR8.eps
69 


516APR9.eps
70 


516APR10.eps
71 


516APR11.eps
72 


516APR12.eps
73 


516APR13.eps
74 


516CAPUA.eps
75 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I could ask you, too, about positive train control and the implementation of that. 

We definitely want to be very supportive of that implementation 

and I would also ask you to look at the fact that we were able to 

use drones and various information at the crash site to give people 

more immediate information. So I hope that you will look at that 

as an application for developing a case and information. 

The reason I’m saying that is it impacted I–5 and if that would 

have gone on for days, it would have been hundreds of millions of 

dollars. The fact that law enforcement, Joint Base Lewis, McCord, 

everybody was able to work together there. I think they then gave 

you the information that you needed and them to make so that 

they could then work at removing those rail cars from I–5. So I just 

would ask you to look at that. 

Ms. King, I also wanted to say there are a lot of rules that we 

just don’t have. The rule on child latch resistance system, rule on 

child restraint system, rule on seatbelt for rear seats, a rule due 

on 2016 manufacturers to use electronic means to communicate, recalls. 

Could you explain what are the delays in these important safety 

rules? 

Ms. KING. Thank you for the question, Senator. I cannot speak 

to the cause of the delays before I stepped into NHTSA, but I can 

assure you that we’re working on those rulemakings now. 

Already this past January, we were able to take action on eight 

directives out of the FAST Act. We’ve launched tools as required. 

So we’ve accelerated our pace and will continue to do so. 

Senator CANTWELL. Is there a ranking of these and when you are 

likely to issue them? 

Ms. KING. We post the dates publicly on the regulatory agenda. 

That was just updated last week. So all of them would be listed 

there with our estimated dates. 

Senator CANTWELL. So which ones are the priorities for next implementation? 

Ms. KING. I’d be happy to walk through the regulatory agenda 

with you. So, forgive me, I think we might have between 40 and 

60 rulemakings in progress, so there are quite a few. 

Senator CANTWELL. Here’s what I will say to that, that having 

worked with the Coast Guard on a plethora of regulations, we don’t 

want the plethora to be no measurement on progress. 

What I think is helpful is every agency has their challenges, is 

to see just what that prioritization is and date. So I’ll look, if you’re 

saying that information exists, on a website. I’ll look forward to it, 

but I think what we want to see is, since these are so important 

to the driving public, that we have a time sense of when they’re 

actually going to be ready for implementation. 

So I see my time has expired. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

76 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. I had another hearing, so I’m glad to be back. 

I recently wrote a letter to Honda asking for an update on the 

remaining alpha inflators and their plans to locate them. Honda estimates that there are 514 alpha inflators in Minnesota and 14,826 

nationally. As you know, these are some of the most dangerous and 

hardest-to-locate Takata air bags. 

Ms. King, what can NHTSA and the independent monitor do to 

support manufacturers in their efforts to locate these remaining 

alpha inflators? 

Ms. KING. Today in the City of New York, the independent monitor is meeting with the manufacturers of vehicles that have these 

dangerous air bags, sharing best practices, and I believe that 

maybe one of the topics of discussion. 

I expect to sit with manufacturers and discuss their next steps 

and their plans, their more aggressive plans soon, as well. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. In Minnesota, we have large Somali, 

Hmong, and Liberian populations. Does NHTSA have plans to expand the languages that it supports for Takata resources beyond 

English and Spanish? 

Ms. KING. That is a point that we are now considering in our 

conversations with the manufacturers. I know that many of our 

materials or many of the materials by the manufacturers may be 

translated in their local efforts. I have not had that conversation 

with them but I will. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Consumers can be our eyes and ears 

on the road when it comes to identifying safety-related defects. 

If confirmed, what steps would you take to improve NHTSA’s 

consumer complaint review process? 

Ms. KING. Thank you for that question. As a career risk manager, I take very seriously the principles and best practices of risk 

management. 

NHTSA has recently changed the way they review the more than 

6,000 consumer complaints received each month. Their continued 

assessment is very important, most importantly the tone from the 

top. 

If confirmed, I can offer a tone from the top, the engagement, 

and the openness to criticism that allows us to identify where we 

can do better, so that we’ll be in constant improvement. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. You and I have talked about distracted 

driving before. It’s one of my big priorities. 

Data shows a 5.6 percent increase in traffic fatalities from one 

year to the next from 2015 to 2016. I still think there’s under-reporting across the country. Many states don’t include a field to note 

cell phone use or distraction as a possible cause of a crash. 

What role do you think NHTSA plays in combating distracted 

driving? Do you think there’s an opportunity to improve the quality 

of data because if I can show some of my colleagues the data or 

they can in state legislatures, I think we’ll get better laws in place? 

Ms. KING. First of all, thank you to Congress for the additional 

resources in the FAST Act that have allowed us additional support 

for states on this particular topic. 

77 

Distracted driving is very difficult to establish and can come 

from many sources and because of that, in our different data collections, the numbers can be very different, and I believe you’re correct. They’re under-reported. 

We have recently completed a Naturalistic Driving Study that 

gives us more detailed information, in fact, that text messaging or 

telephone calls can increase crash risk by two or three times, but 

what we are doing next is we’re launching a study to better understand the causes of a crash in today’s technology with the technology people have in their hands today. 

The last thorough study we did of crash causation was in 2005– 

2006. It’s time for us to update that based on the technologies and 

vehicles on the road today and we’re now working on a plan to 

launch such a study. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. 

Ms. Homendy, the National Transportation Safety Board includes the reducing fatigue-related accidents on its 2017 to 2018 

Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements, and I 

reintroduced the Safe Skies Act, which I worked on with Barbara 

Boxer for many years, and this bill would take the rest requirements put in place for passenger pilots after the Hudson crash and 

apply them to cargo pilots who, despite using the same runways 

and air space, currently have lose or rest requirements. This is one 

where Captain Sullenberger has joined us in supporting this 

change. 

Is dealing with pilot fatigue a priority for you and the NTSB? 

Ms. HOMENDY. Yes, Senator. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And what do you think we should do about 

it when it comes to cargo planes? 

Ms. HOMENDY. I think there should be scientifically-based hours 

of service standards that also apply to cargo pilots. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. 

The rail crossings, rail crossings, as you know, can delay or prevent emergency medical services, keep drivers stalled. I included a 

provision in the FAST Act to help address the safety risks associated with blocked rail crossings. 

It’s an ongoing problem in my state. Sometimes rail comes in or 

we might get an overpass, something happens, but it’s still a problem and we see potentially increased trains coming in, and depending on what happens with oil in North Dakota, a lot of it comes 

through and we know that energy production is there and it’s 

American energy production, but, again, we have to be able to be 

ready for that production and just as we are when there’s an increase in ag products or an increase in ethanol and biofuels. 

The NTSB has previously issued recommendations on crossing 

technology and investigated several crashes. 

Are you committed to addressing blocked rail crossings at the 

NTSB, and what can the NTSB do to promote safety at rail crossings? 

Ms. HOMENDY. Yes, Senator, I am committed to that and there 

are definitely a number of things that can be done to improve 

grade crossing safety. 

Certainly the safest grade crossing is no grade crossing at all and 

that takes resources and funding in the Section 130 Program, but 

78 

I think, in addition to that, the NTSB has recommended active 

warning devices be installed, like lights and gates. 

I do think enforcement and then education campaigns. I do know 

that FRA and NHTSA have a current education campaign called 

Stop. Trains Can’t. So I’m interested in looking at that, as well, but 

I am familiar with your issue on blocked crossings. 

I think when I worked for Chairman Oberstar, I think it was 

Ore, Minnesota, who had a specific issue with that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That’s very specific research. That is good. 

Ms. HOMENDY. But in my current role, Mr. DeFazio had asked 

GAO to do a report on longer trains and blocked crossings and I’m 

eager to hear what the GAO finds on that and happy to work with 

you, if confirmed. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Chairman, could I just do one more 

question of Mr. Gruters? 

I will put one on the record about policy changes on private car 

service, but I had one question on long distance service. 

Our intercity passenger rail system carries more than 30 million 

passengers each year, as you know. In Minnesota, the Empire 

Builder provides a vital link to many rural towns. Amtrak service 

helps students get to college, workers to job centers, tourists to 

travel. For cities, like Winona, Minnesota, where Amtrak has a station, and all the other towns along the Empire Builder, long distance passenger service provides an important economic boost. 

Mr. Gruters, what would you do to ensure Amtrak continues to 

offer quality services for passengers that rely on these long distance routes that are not on the coast? 

Mr. GRUTERS. Thank you, Senator. I support long-term rail. I’m 

open minded on it, and I think our CEO Richard Anderson has a 

vision for the future and I think rural communities do need access. 

A lot of times, it’s these rail stations that provide the main access 

in and outside of passenger automobiles. 

So I will also say as a CPA, hopefully I’ll bring my unique skill 

set to try to create some efficiencies so we can ensure the long-term 

success and survival of these long-term routes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GRUTERS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

And we’re hoping to improve Amtrak service into South Dakota, 

too. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And what is that service now? 

The CHAIRMAN. It’s non-existent. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That’s what I thought. That was why I 

asked. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’ve enjoyed listening to all my colleagues ask 

questions about Amtrak. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. The Black Hills is a good place to visit. 

The CHAIRMAN. It’s a really good place, as you know. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I know. I always went on vacation there. 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s right. We appreciate you coming our way. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. 

The CHAIRMAN. You had to take Interstate 90. You’re not going 

on Amtrak. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

79 

The CHAIRMAN. I can tell you that, so. 

Just a couple of quick questions and we’ll wrap up here. 

Ms. King, NHTSA is currently considering updating its advisory 

on the State Traffic Records Grant Program. The existing guidance 

certainly deserves review. It currently poses to states 391 questions 

over 132 pages, including asking about the condition of all public 

unpaved roads. 

In rural states, such as South Dakota, they have extensive unpaved public road mileage. The time and resources needed to respond to this request could divert focus from research and the benefits of the traffic records, the records of the grant program itself, 

so states would still have, even if you did that, 390 questions to answer. 

So could you commit to carefully reviewing this advisory in order 

to lessen the unnecessary burden on states and, more generally, 

will you look for opportunities to avoid unnecessary burdens on 

states in the Safety Grant Programs going forward? 

Ms. KING. Yes, with enthusiasm. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Thank you. That would be more appreciated. 

As has been pointed out earlier today, 94 percent of motor vehicle crashes attributed to human error, and I think the number you 

mentioned was 37,400 and some fatalities on America’s highways 

in 2016. 

Self-driving vehicles have the potential to save a lot of lives and 

I think you alluded to that, at least some of my colleagues did, as 

well, and they will also increase efficiency and mobility, serving, I 

think, some terrific needs in our economy, providing elderly people, 

disabled people access to mobility that they don’t have today. 

How will the agency keep pace with these emerging technologies, 

such as self-driving vehicles? 

Ms. KING. Information sharing and transparency is absolutely 

critical, not only with the emerging technologies but with the research. So our continued conversation not only with the manufacturers and developers but with the states, with local law enforcement or rescue personnel. 

We’ve had several public meetings. We will continue that dialogue with vigor. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. Ms. Homendy, in your questionnaire, you 

also mentioned the need for NTSB to keep pace with the innovation occurring across the entirety of the transportation sector. 

As technology, such as drones and self-driving vehicles become 

more commonplace, how will NTSB work with the relevant regulators to ensure the benefits of these transformative technologies 

are realized safely? 

Ms. HOMENDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the NTSB and 

the DOT have the same mission and that’s to improve transportation, reduce transportation accidents and traffic crashes and save 

lives, and I believe these technologies have the potential to reduce 

transportation accidents and save lives. 

They do have some safety risks that need to be further evaluated 

and mitigated, but I think that NTSB can play a very valuable role 

in helping move these technologies forward safely. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good, good. In addition to autonomous vehicles, 

the drone issue is something we address in our FAA bill, and they 

80 

are wonderful transformative technologies with lots of applications 

in many areas of the country, there is a high level of interest in 

my state in both, and so we just want to make sure that we’re 

doing everything we can to see that they progress in a way that 

maximizes safety. 

Amtrak CEO, and I will direct this to you, Mr. Gruters, Richard 

Anderson recently testified before Congress that Amtrak must—I 

should say must evaluate how to handle tenant railroads’ traffic 

operating over Amtrak track if such tenants are not fully compliant 

with PTC implementation and whether Amtrak should prevent 

non-compliant equipment from being used on its track after the 

deadline. 

If confirmed, you and the rest of the Amtrak Board will be 

charged with determining the strategic direction of Amtrak. 

Do you share Mr. Anderson’s view that non-compliant equipment 

should generally be prohibited from use on Amtrak’s tracks? 

Mr. GRUTERS. Thank you, Chairman. I think safety is the top 

issue and implementing PTC is critical. 

PTC does need to be the standard and I think at a Committee 

hearing just a couple of months ago, Richard Anderson did say that 

he would stop if they didn’t implement PTC, but I think the most 

important thing for us to have open communication and collaboration with the partners to make sure that we can help these guys, 

help all of our partners hit the full implementation as fast as we 

possibly can. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Good. Well, we got a short timeline to work 

with on PTC implementation and a lot at stake. So hopefully you 

and your colleagues there can work quickly and work with FRA 

and other agencies that are engaged in this to make sure that we 

stay on track. It will be really important for our country, for our 

safety, and for those who rely upon those forms of transportation 

to get to and from their destinations. 

We’ll wrap it up with that. I’m going to ask unanimous consent 

to include in the record letters of support from Chairman Bob 

Latta, the National Safety Council, the Governors’ Highway Safety 

Association, and Safe Kids Worldwide. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

81 


516LATTA.eps 516NSC.eps
82 


516GHSA.eps
83 


516SAFEK.eps
84 

The CHAIRMAN. I would say to all of our nominees that given our 

hope to place your nominations on the Committee’s next markup 

that we will keep the hearing record open through the close of business tomorrow, May 17, and we’re hoping that during that time 

that Senators who wish to submit any questions for the record can 

get those answered quickly. 

So I would ask you upon receipt if you would move very quickly 

to submit your answers to the Committee as soon as possible but 

preferably no later than noon on Monday, May 21. We would love 

to get these processed in this work period. 

So I again want to thank you for your willingness to serve and 

for the commitment that you and your families make to that and 

thank you for being responsive to our questions today, and we’ll 

look forward to moving these nominations forward. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(85) 

A P P E N D I X 


516SAVE1.eps
86 

May 14, 2018 

Chairman JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Ranking Member BILL NELSON, 

U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson: 

The Center for Auto Safety (‘‘the Center’’) submits the following letter in connection with today’s hearing regarding the nomination of Deputy Administrator Heidi 

King of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for the position of Administrator. While Ms. King has only held the Deputy Administrator position for seven months, her actions, or lack of actions, have raised serious questions 

regarding the nominee’s ability to direct NHTSA as a safety and enforcement agency. The Center, founded in 1970, is an independent, non-profit consumer advocacy 

organization dedicated to improving vehicle safety, quality, and fuel economy not 

only for our members, but all drivers, passengers, and pedestrians across the county. On behalf of those members, and all individuals nationwide impacted by traffic 

safety and the quality of the air we breathe, the Center writes today to express our 

significant concerns with this nomination. 

1. Rulemakings 

NHTSA’s responsibility for promulgating rules and regulations to maintain the 

safety of the American people is one of its most important authorities and duties. 

Currently there are many regulations that are required to be written by law which 

remain untouched. 

Under Deputy Administrator King, rules that Congress mandated in order to protect children, inform consumers of recalls, and provide predictability and fairness 

in the marketplace have been ignored. To name only a few: 

• NHTSA was required by Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

(MAP–21) to issue a rule by October 1, 2015 providing requirements for improved Child LATCH Restraint Systems, in order to protect our most vulnerable 

citizens in cars and light trucks—infant children. Since issuing the NPRM in 

January 2015, NHTSA has provided no target date for further action. 

• NHTSA was required by MAP–21 to issue a final rule by October 1, 2014 providing requirements for how Child Restraint Systems must perform when involved in a side impact crash. The NPRM was issued in January 2014. Based 

on current activity, NHTSA’s recent suggestion the rule would be completed by 

October 2018 seems unlikely at best. 

• NHTSA was required by MAP–21 to issue a rule by October 1, 2015 providing 

requirements for all new vehicles to have Reminders for Rear Seat Passengers 

to put on Seat Belts. Almost 1,000 people die every year in crashes in the back 

seat of cars and light trucks because they are not wearing their seatbelts. 

Under Deputy Administrator King, NHTSA has not even initiated rulemaking, 

nor has a realistic time frame for a final rule been proposed. 

• NHTSA was required by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act 

(FAST) Act to issue a rule by August 29, 2016 providing requirements for how 

auto manufacturers must use electronic means to notify consumers of Vehicle 

Safety Recalls. With tens of millions of open recalls on the road, including 20 

million or more deadly Takata airbag inflators remaining in circulation, this 

rule would actively assist in increasing recall completion rates and, if done 

quickly enough, could save lives. Since issuing an NPRM in August 2016, 

NHTSA has provided no target date for further action. Ms. King recently released a short video attempting to reach the owners of certain vehicles for 

which ‘‘do-not-drive’’ orders had been issued. Perhaps this would not have been 

necessary if these owners had been reached via e-mail. 

The continued blatant disregard under Deputy Administrator King for the lawful 

mandates passed by the United States Congress by NHTSA raises serious concerns 

over what will be different if she is confirmed with respect to delivering on NHTSA’s 

core safety mission to the American people. 

2. Autonomous Vehicles 

In recent months there have been multiple incidents involving what are commonly 

referred to as ‘‘autonomous vehicles,’’ or ‘‘self-driving cars.’’ Some of these incidents 

have resulted in deaths of both pedestrians (an Uber vehicle striking and killing a 

pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona) as well as drivers (Tesla driver killed with vehicle 

in ‘‘autopilot’’ mode). Under Deputy Administrator King, NHTSA has done nothing 

87 

1 Chistopher Mims, In Self-Driving-Car Road Test, We Are the Guinea Pigs, Wall Street Journal, May 14, 2018, at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-self-driving-car-road-test-we-are-theguinea-pigs-1526212802 2Public Meeting—Voluntary Safety Assessments, October 20, 2017; Automated Driving Systems 

2.0: A Vision for Safety Public Meeting, November 6, 2017; Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems, January 18, 2018 3 Robertson, L., J Public Health Pol (2018) Road death trend in the United States: implied effects of prevention, available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-018-0123-2 

but cheerlead for industry even as incidents pile up and new questions arise about 

the complete lack of Federal standards or oversight required to protect our citizenry 

from being used as guinea pigs in a corporate product development experiment.1

Instead of looking for ways to protect Americans, and ensure the safe development 

of potentially groundbreaking technology, over the last seven months there have 

been nothing but multiple open comment periods 2 attempting to identify and eliminate regulations that might slow down universal deployment of still unproven robotcars. One of the few public steps taken since Deputy Administrator King has been 

in office is to make the very limited set of voluntary guidelines for manufacturers 

to follow when testing self-driving cars—even less specific and even more voluntary. 

3. The Air We Breathe (Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) 

standards) 

One of the roles of the NHTSA Administrator which impacts the lives of every 

human being in the United States, and to a lesser extent, the world, is setting fuel 

economy standards for passenger vehicles. In addition to setting those standards, 

NHTSA also has the authority to enforce those standards by levying fines against 

auto companies that violate the rules. Under Deputy Administrator King, NHTSA 

has neither acted to protect the environment by maintaining the consensus standards set over a multi-year negotiation process, resulting in the current CAFE standards, nor has NHTSA acted in consumers’ best interest at the gas pump. 

Based on widely reported media stories, Deputy Administrator King fully backs 

the proposed rollback of the MY 2017–2025 standards, a proposal which would increase oil consumption by 206 billion gallons of gasoline between 2020–2050. The 

importance of these standards to the public is tremendous, and not only with respect to the air we breathe. Consumers can expect to save between $3,200–$4,800 

over the lifetime of a new vehicle meeting the standards, even at low gas prices. 

Gas prices are rising on almost a daily basis. They are currently approaching a 

three-year high and they are expected to continue to rise. Savings from the existing 

CAFE standards are estimated to be up to $8,200 per vehicle to consumers. 

The efforts to ignore NHTSA’s statutory obligation to set the ‘‘maximum feasible’’ 

standard for each model year highlight the concerns that all Senators should have 

with this nomination. Rolling back CAFE standards not only will put the American 

auto industry behind in the global market, where many of our largest competitors, 

like China and India, are moving forward with more stringent standards, it is an 

insult to the American automaker’s ability to adopt new technology to meet the 

challenges of a new world. 

4. Resource Allocation 

Under Ms. King’s leadership, NHTSA continues to promise to make safety a priority, yet when putting pen to paper and making decisions about how to allocate 

appropriated funds, these promises always seem to evaporate. NHTSA’s budget requests under the nominee appear to remain in line with the larger DOT philosophy 

of promising safety but cutting areas that could deliver on those promises. 

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 budget request sought to significantly decrease funding 

to the areas of the agency that are the most likely to deliver safety results to the 

American people. For example, in FY 2017, NHTSA’s enacted appropriation for ‘‘Vehicle Safety Programs,’’ (which are the heart of the agency) was $180,075,000. For 

FY 2019, the request was reduced to $152,427,000 for this vital program—a 15 percent decrease in funding. 

A recent study, published in the Journal of Public Health Policy, noted that governmental interventions mandating traffic safety measures at the Federal and state 

levels, along with technological advances, have saved over 5 million lives since 

1968.3 Yet, among the areas that the current leadership of NHTSA would seek to 

underfund include the Rulemaking, Enforcement, and Research and Analysis departments. These departments have been integrally involved in creating the vehicle 

crashworthiness and other safety standards that make many of those 5 million lives 

88 

4 It seems worth noting that the only area where DOT has requested an increase in this section of its budget is for administrative expenses, despite not even having an Administrator 

nominee. 5https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/civil-penalty-settlement-amounts 

6See Staff Report for Senators Blumenthal and Markey: Automaker Report Card: Loaner Car 

Policies for Consumers Affected by the Takata Airbag Recall, March 2018. 7See Ryan Beene, U.S. Regulators Slam Low Takata Air Bag Recall Rate by Carmakers,, 

Bloomberg, May 14, 2018, at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018–05–14/u-s-regulators-slam-low-takata-air-bag-recall-rate-by-carmakers. 

saved possible.4 Smart, targeted regulations make a real difference when it comes 

to safety in our cars and on our roads. 

While more funding alone will not make any safety agency function perfectly, the 

ability for NHTSA to realize its full potential to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce the economic burdens we all face due to crashes on our Nation’s roads lies 

squarely with how its leadership sets agency priorities. The proposed budget of an 

agency is an outline of those priorities, and no matter how dedicated career staff 

may be, the agency tasked with overseeing so much of our Nation’s traffic safety 

cannot do its job with one arm tied behind its back. Underfunding this critical agency is counterproductive to the safety goals I am sure we all share. The priorities 

outlined by Ms. King’s budget raise serious concerns regarding whether NHTSA will 

be able to fulfill its statutory mission. 

5. Civil Penalties 

One of the key tools in ensuring Federal traffic safety laws and rules are followed 

by all regulated entities is enforcement by NHTSA. While civil penalties should be 

reserved for the most serious of violators, all safety agencies need to be prepared 

to employ the deterrent effect civil penalties have, not only on the party at fault, 

but any other potential violator. 

Since Ms. King has been at NHTSA there has been exactly one civil penalty announced, for $10,000 against a trailer company.5 This lax attitude when it comes 

to enforcement of the law sends exactly the wrong message to those who might contemplate whether it was worth their while to take the extra step to comply with 

the safety rules that exist to keep cars and trucks in compliance and our citizens 

safe. 

What is worse, is that one of the only steps Ms. King has taken since joining 

NHTSA is to actively work to rollback the implementation of inflation-adjusted civil 

penalties meant to ensure auto companies invest in fuel-saving technologies. While 

this unlawful delay has been stayed by 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, the inability 

or unwillingness to enforce the law, or use civil penalty authority, raises significant 

concerns about the nominee’s likelihood of carrying out the statutory mandate of the 

agency she is asking to lead. 

6. Airbags 

Despite the agency’s continued assurance that the Takata inflator recalls are a 

top priority, recall completion rates remain dismal and consumers continue to face 

a risk of death or serious injury. Under Deputy Administrator King, NHTSA has 

been unwilling to penalize manufacturers who perform poorly under the Coordinated Remedy Program, deferring and delaying manufacturer responsibility. Furthermore, NHTSA has failed to even request that manufacturers provide loaner vehicles to consumers with ticking time bombs in their dashboards. As a result, only 

a small minority of automakers have voluntarily chosen to provide their customers 

with loaner vehicles while awaiting airbag replacements.6

So far, the only step taken by NHTSA under Ms. King is a letter to each manufacturer that failed to meet the December 31, 2017 deadline to replace the most deadly 

and defective Takata airbags. Released only two days prior to her confirmation 

hearing, King’s letters merely ‘‘invite’’ these manufacturers to ‘‘contact NHTSA.’’ 7

By some counts 19 million airbags remain unreplaced, and the industry completion 

rate hovers under 60 percent. This ‘‘invitation’’ for an updated proposed timeline 

from NHTSA is months overdue, and based on prior history, it is hard to envision 

any penalty will be meted out by NHTSA for these gross violations of agreed upon 

timeframes for airbag replacement. Further delay serves only to prevent consumers 

from having defective airbags replaced that may explode and send shrapnel flying 

in their face or the faces of their loved ones. 

As mentioned previously, NHTSA is two years late on issuing a rulemaking to require e-mail notification of recalls, which would certainly have had positive impact 

on Takata recall completion rates—had NHTSA completed this mandate by the 

deadline. Unfortunately, under Ms. King, the agency has made no progress on this 

89 

mandate, leaving consumers reliant on snail mail as their only notice of potentially 

dangerous defects in their vehicles. 

7. Investigations 

Since Deputy Administrator King took a leadership role at NHTSA, investigations 

have fallen to almost historic lows. Despite continuing to receive complaints on a 

regular basis that raise questions of potentially life-threatening defects, it is almost 

unheard of for NHTSA to formally open investigations in the current administration. Delaying the opening of investigations risks unnecessarily exposing consumers 

to vehicle defects. For circumstances where investigations sit open for years while 

NHTSA and automakers go back and forth over the details, consumers remain at 

risk for even longer periods of time. 

For the motoring public to have faith that this safety agency is looking out for 

the public first, NHTSA must have an Administrator willing to support the agency’s 

enforcement wing in opening investigations—and once the investigations have been 

opened, following the data to its logical end in a timely manner that eliminates unnecessary and possibly deadly delay. 

Conclusion 

There are few products that impact as many Americans as automobiles. NHTSA 

needs an Administrator who has as her first priority the safety of each and every 

driver, passenger, and pedestrian. Deaths and injuries from traffic crashes remain 

a public health crisis, with over 37,000 dead and over 2 million seriously injured 

every year. Cars continue to hold their place as the number one killer of Americans 

ages 5–24. New technology promises answers but offers little evidence yet of its reliability. The role of oversight of the auto industry, falls to NHTSA. Unfortunately, 

in seven months as Deputy Administrator, Ms. King’s record raises serious concerns 

about her ability to lead NHTSA at this vital time in the history of auto safety. 

On behalf of the Center for Auto Safety and our members, thank you for your attention to this important matter. 

Sincerely, 

JASON LEVINE, 

Executive Director. 

cc: All Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY * CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY * 

CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION * LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS * 

MOMS CLEAN AIR FORCE * PLUG IN AMERICA * SAFE CLIMATE CAMPAIGN * 

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS * VOICES FOR PROGRESS * PUBLIC CITIZEN

May 14, 2018 

Dear Senators, 

The undersigned organizations are writing to express our strong concerns with 

the nomination of Heidi King to become the Administrator of the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We are gravely concerned about Ms. King’s 

ability to lead NHTSA, when her actions thus far have undermined the mission of 

NHTSA. While serving as the Deputy Administrator of NHTSA, Ms. King demonstrated an anti-environmental record, a disregard for state cooperation and failure 

to prioritize critical safety protections. For these reasons, we are concerned she will 

weaken NHTSA and threaten American consumers’ pocketbooks, health, and safety. 

Establishment and Enforcement of Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

(CAFE) standards 

NHTSA sets fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles and enforces the 

standards, including by fining auto companies that violate the rules. However, we 

write to convey our deep concerns with the agency’s approach, during King’s tenure, 

toward both setting fuel economy standards and enforcement. The recent leaked 

joint draft proposal for light-duty vehicle standards for fuel economy and greenhouse 

gas emissions shows that NHTSA, alongside the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), intends to significantly weaken the existing standards through MY 2026. The 

preferred regulatory approach outlined in the document proposes maintaining 

‘‘[e]xisting standards through MY 2020, then 0 percent/year increases for both passenger cars and light trucks, for MYs 2021–2026.’’ This proposal relies on unjustified cost analysis and data, flawed safety assumptions and blatant disregard for energy conservation and climate change. This proposal would increase oil consumption 

90 

1https://gasprices.aaa.com/ 

2http://consumersunion.org/2016/09/new-cafe-standards-help-consumers-save-big/ 

3https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/24/gas-prices-are-near-a-three-year-high-heres-how-to-saveat-the-pump.html 4http://consumersunion.org/news/2017-fuel-economy-survey/ 

5https://www.nrdc.org/experts/luke-tonachel/clean-car-and-fuel-economy-standards-whats- next 6https://www.nhtsa.gov/about-nhtsa 

7 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing, ‘‘The Administration’s Framework for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America,’’ March 1, 2018. Transcript online 

at https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4/f/4fa932cf-9a97-42bc-959e-1e1e5536e197/ 

C03D6C188C459DAE0ADA8B8CA9695A06.spw-030118.pdf 8https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1483620/green-mountain-chrysler-plymouth-dodge-vcrombie/ 9https://perma.cc/34C4-G23H 

by 206 billion gallons of gasoline between 2020-2050. As our Nation’s premier oil 

use reduction program, this rollback of the CAFE standards is unacceptable. 

Additionally, this proposal violates NHTSA’s statutory obligation to set the ‘‘maximum feasible’’ standard for each model year. The assertion that the American auto 

industry cannot improve or innovate their fleets for the better part of a decade is 

not only unbelievable, but it is inconsistent with an industry which prides itself on 

leadership in innovation and technology. Further, it will put the American industry 

behind in the global market, where many of our largest competitors, like China and 

India, are moving forward with more stringent standards. 

In addition to attempting to weaken the CAFE standards, during Ms. King’s tenure, NHTSA has also undermined the ability to enforce vehicle performance standards. In fact, the agency attempted to unlawfully delay implementation of inflationadjusted civil penalties meant to ensure auto companies invest in fuel-saving technologies. This attempted delay was recently stayed by the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court 

of Appeals on April 23. The agency attempted to establish a perverse incentive by 

making it cheaper for auto companies to simply pay a fine rather than meet fuel 

economy standards. The result is that consumers will have less fuel-efficient vehicle 

choices on the market, will pay more at the gas pump, and will suffer from increased pollution. 

The importance of these standards to the public is tremendous. Consumers can expect to save between $3,200–$4,800 over the lifetime of a new vehicle meeting the 

standards, even at low gas prices. As prices currently approach a three year high 

and are expected to continue to rise, the savings will be up to $8,200 per truck.1

2 3 A recent Consumers Union survey found nearly 9 out of 10 consumers want 

automakers to continue to raise fuel efficiency.4 Moreover, 2012–2025 standards are 

expected to cut our reliance on oil by 2.4 million barrels per day by 2030.5 And annual carbon pollution in 2030 would be reduced by 570 million metric tons of CO2, which is equivalent to the pollution from 85 million of today’s cars or 140 coal-fired 

power plants. 

Partnership with state and local governments 

NHTSA ‘‘is responsible for keeping people safe on America’s roadways. Through 

enforcing vehicle performance standards and partnerships with state and local governments. . .’’ 6 While the Department of Transportation claims to be working 

alongside states in furtherance of vehicle standards,7 the leaked proposed light-duty 

vehicle standards for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions fly in the face of 

over half a century of cooperative federalism. 

During King’s tenure, NHTSA appears to be illegally trying to preempt states’ authority to enforce vehicle pollution standards. District courts in Vermont 8 and California 9 have already confirmed that California may regulate vehicle greenhouse gas 

emissions under the Clean Air Act, while NHTSA regulates fuel economy. The 

leaked notice of proposed rulemaking purports ‘‘states may not adopt or enforce tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions standards when such standards relate to fuel economy standards and are therefore preempted under EPCA [Energy Policy and Conservation Act], regardless of whether EPA granted any waivers under the Clean Air 

Act.’’ This policy ignores the congressional record and threatens the authority of the 

very state and local government actors that Ms. King supposedly is working alongside. 

Addressing safety 

We also have grave concerns about the long-delayed safety regulations which the 

agency has failed to promulgate. Under Ms. King’s guidance, NHTSA has prioritized 

pursuing the administration’s deregulatory agenda rather than completing statutorily mandated safety rulemakings. 

91 

10https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tripping/wp/2018/03/20/the-u-s-needs-to-moveforward-on-rear-seat-safety-belts/ 11https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/seat-belts 12https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/takata-recall-spotlight 13https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-releases-more-data-takata-air-bag-repairs 14https://www.consumerreports.org/car-recalls-defects/takata-airbag-recall-everything-youneed-to-know/ 15Please visit www.safercar.gov to check the recall status of your vehicles. 

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21) was signed 

into law in July of 2012. MAP–21 required a rule to better protect children in car 

seats during side-impact crashes. MAP–21 required NHTSA to write a rule on improving child-restraint-anchorage systems by 2015. NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in 2014, but there has been no further action. This rule is now 

more than 2 years overdue. 

MAP–21 also required NHTSA to issue a final safety standard no later than October 2015, which would amend the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard to provide 

a safety belt reminder system for rear seats. According to the National Safety Council, more than 1,000 back-seat passengers died in 2016, more than 

half of whom were not wearing seatbelts.10 According to NHTSA’s website, ‘‘one 

of the safest choices drivers and passengers can make is to buckle up.’’ 11 Yet under 

Ms. King’s guidance, the administration has failed to even propose, let alone issue 

a final rule. 

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was signed into law in December of 2015. The FAST Act required a rule to ensure consumer notification of 

recalls electronically, in addition to notification by e-mail. The final rule was due 

in 2016, but NHTSA has only issued an NPRM. This rule is more important than 

ever considering the urgency around the Takata airbag recall. 

Tens of millions of vehicles from 19 different automakers with Takata airbags are 

under recall, in what NHTSA has called ‘‘the largest and most complex safety recall 

in U.S. history.’’ 12 13 The airbags, made by major parts supplier Takata, were mostly installed in cars from model year 2002 through 2015. Some of those airbags could 

deploy explosively, injuring or even killing car occupants.14 To date, there have been 

15 deaths due to this problem in the U.S.15

These concerns are by no means exhaustive, but rather highlight the need for further investigation into Ms. King’s priorities as they relate to our oil savings, state 

cooperation and safety. We urge the Senate to carefully consider all the issues surrounding this nominee to protect the critical work all Americans expect and need 

from NHTSA. 

Sincerely, 

Center for Auto Safety 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Conservation Law Foundation 

League of Conservation Voters 

Moms Clean Air Force 

Plug In America 

Safe Climate Campaign 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

Voices for Progress 

Public Citizen 

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY * CLIMATE HAWKS VOTE * LEAGUE OF

CONSERVATION VOTERS * PLUG IN AMERICA* SAFE CLIMATE CAMPAIGN * 

SIERRA CLUB * UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS * VOICES FOR PROGRESS

May 21, 2018 

Dear Senators, 

The undersigned organizations write to express our opposition to the nomination 

of Heidi King for Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We are gravely concerned about Ms. King’s ability to lead NHTSA, 

given her history of attempting to undermine critical oil conservation and, thus, environmental efforts during her tenure at NHTSA. Moreover, in her recent confirmation hearing, Ms. King was evasive when asked whether climate change is real and 

needs to be addressed. This is an unacceptable response from someone who, if confirmed, will be charged with implementing CAFE standards, a critical component 

in our country’s efforts to reduce oil usage and working in concert with EPA regulaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:39 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57803.TXT JACKIE
92 

1Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing on nominees held 

May 16, 2018 2https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening humans-primary-cause 3Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing on nominees held 

May 16, 2018 4https://gasprices.aaa.com/ 

5http://consumersunion.org/2016/09/new-cafe-standards-help-consumers-save-big/ 

6 https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/24/gas-prices-are-near-a-three-year-high-heres-how-to-saveat-the-pump.html 7http://consumersunion.org/news/2017-fuel-economy-survey/ 

8https://www.nrdc.org/experts/luke-tonachel/clean-car-and-fuel-economy-standards-whatsnext 

tions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. King’s record thus far shows, if confirmed, 

she will weaken the CAFE standards, threatening American consumers’ pocketbooks, health and environment. For these reasons, we oppose Ms. King’s nomination. 

Ms. King’s failure to acknowledge the existence of climate change, let alone the 

importance to address the problem, indicates she is not qualified to lead NHTSA.1

Although she tried to say that she would listen to scientists, that is clearly not the 

case as the vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is happening, and 

humans are causing it.2 3 This discrepancy is alarming and indicates to us that she 

is not listening to scientists on this critical topic and thus likely also not listening 

to scientists on additional topics that are in her agencies’ purview. 

The evidence of climate change is overwhelming. As we face record-breaking temperatures, increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, and longer 

and more severe droughts and wildfire seasons, we need a NHTSA Administrator 

who understands and acknowledges that the transportation sector is now the largest 

and fastest growing source of carbon emissions in the United States, and reducing 

these emissions is critical to combatting climate change. 

NHTSA sets fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles and enforces the 

standards, including by fining auto companies that violate the rules. However, 

based on available information about the current proposal for the fuel economy 

standards for model years 2021–2025, which Ms. King is overseeing, she has worked 

to weaken the CAFE standards and states’ rights. She also oversaw a recently overturned attempt to lower the fines that automakers pay for missing the goals of the 

CAFE standards. 

The importance of the CAFE standards to the public cannot be understated. Consumers can expect to save between $3,200–$4,800 over the lifetime of a new vehicle 

meeting the 2025 standards, even at low gas prices. As gas prices currently approach a three year high and are expected to continue to rise, the savings will be 

up to $8,200 per truck.456 A recent Consumers Union survey found nearly 9 out 

of 10 consumers want automakers to continue to raise fuel efficiency.7 Moreover, 

2012–2025 standards are expected to cut 

our reliance on oil by 2.4 million barrels per day by 2030.8 And annual carbon 

pollution in 2030 would be reduced by 570 million metric tons of CO2, which is 

equivalent to the pollution from 85 million of today’s cars or 140 coal-fired power 

plants. 

Americans deserve a NHTSA administrator who acknowledges the established 

science of climate change and works to ensure that consumers continue to benefit 

from strong fuel economy standards. We urge you to vote no on the nomination of 

Heidi King for NHTSA Administrator. 

Sincerely, 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Climate Hawks Vote 

League of Conservation Voters 

Plug in America 

Safe Climate Campaign 

Sierra Club 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

Voices for Progress 

93 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

JOSEPH GRUTERS

Question 1. Amtrak’s budget: Does President Trump’s proposed budget for Fiscal 

Year 2019 support cutting appropriations to Amtrak? 

Answer. The President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 budget request proposes several 

reforms to Amtrak with the stated aim of improving efficiency and reducing costs. 

The FY 2019 budget request is a reduction from the FY 2018 enacted funding levels. 

Question 2. Amtrak’s budget: Do you support cutting appropriations to Amtrak for 

Fiscal Year 2019? 

Answer. Congress is charged with setting annual appropriations for Amtrak. As 

a member of the Amtrak Board of Directors, if confirmed, I have a fiduciary responsibility to carry out statutory directives of Congress. 

Question 3. Amtrak’s budget How much Federal funding should Amtrak receive 

in Fiscal Year 2019? 

Answer. I am not currently on the Board of Amtrak and do not have direct experience working with Amtrak. However, I look forward to working with Congress, Amtrak staff and CEO Richard Anderson to ensure that Amtrak is the safest, most reliable, and most efficient passenger railroad service that it can be. 

Question 4. Driving record: Is there anything in your driving history that should 

concern the committee? 

Answer. No. However, I have received normal traffic citations. 

Question 5. Driving record: In the past ten years, have you been given any traffic 

citations? If so, please provide all information regarding any such citations. 

Answer. 

• 8–18–2011 MANATEE 0 6472WFT UNLAWFUL SPEED SPEEDING 39 IN A 

30 ZONE ADJUDICATION WITHHELD—CLERK SCHOOL 

• 08–24–2015 SARASOTA 0 A43PTZE CARELESS DRIVING ADJUDICATION 

WITHHELD—CLERK SCHOOL ELECTION 

• 07–25–2016 SARASOTA 4 A5XR5HE CARELESS DRIVING DISPOSITION 

WAS GUILTY COUNTY COURT CRASH INDICATED 

Question 6. Driving record: In the past ten years, has the State of Florida ever 

threatened to suspend your driving privileges? If so, please provide all information 

regarding actions taken by the State of Florida and possible suspension of your driving privileges. 

Answer. No. 

Question 7. Driving record: Are there any complaints or actions that are responsive to question C.1. of the committee’s questionnaire that you have failed to disclose? 

Answer. No. However, in the spirit of being open and transparent, I will point out 

that although not personally subject to any other complaints other than what was 

listed, in my capacity as a grassroots political party chairman, I was named along 

with the organization’s treasurer in a Florida Elections Commission complaint related to inadvertent errors made by the treasurer on quarterly financial reports. The 

errors were corrected by the treasurer in an amended report. The organization settled the complaint and paid the fine. I did not prepare the reports that included 

the inadvertent errors and I did not pay a fine. 

Question 8. Driving record: If so, please provide all information regarding such 

complaints or actions. If there are any complaints or actions that you failed to disclose, please explain the reason for the lack of disclosure. 

Answer. N/A 

Question 9. Gateway: Do you believe the Federal government should be a key 

partner in efforts to rebuild the aging and decaying rail tunnels under the Hudson 

River, also known as the Gateway Project? 

Answer. I am not yet a member of the Amtrak Board of Directors, however, if confirmed, I look forward to learning more about all capital infrastructure projects impacting Amtrak’s operations. Also, I look forward to working closely with Members 

of Congress to better understand their priorities for Amtrak service. 

Question 10. Gateway: Do you agree that the success of the Gateway Project is 

critical for the long-term success of Amtrak? 

Answer. I am not yet a member of the Amtrak Board of Directors, however, if confirmed, I look forward to learning more about all capital infrastructure projects impacting the long-term success of Amtrak’s operations. 

94 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

JOSEPH GRUTERS

Question. I appreciated your recognition of the importance of Amtrak for rural 

communities. As you heard from my colleagues, Senators Moran and Gardner, we 

strongly support the Southwest Chief line. We are concerned about Amtrak seeming 

to walk back from previous commitments to our communities to work cooperatively 

to upgrade and maintain the rail system that the Southwest Chief uses. 

Will you commit to working with all of the stakeholders, including the delegations 

from the states impacted, to ensure that Amtrak will continue their commitment to 

the Southwest Chief? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Congressional delegations, Amtrak, and other impacted stakeholders to ensure that Amtrak continues 

its commitment to the Southwest Chief. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TAMMY BALDWIN TO

JOSEPH GRUTERS

Question 1. Passenger rail is a vital component of a 21st century infrastructure 

network. For many Wisconsinites, Amtrak may be the most affordable and efficient 

mode of transportation. Further, reports indicate that reduction or elimination of 

Amtrak service would disproportionately impact rural and low-income Americans. 

Are you committed to supporting robust investments in Amtrak’s long-distance 

routes and national network? 

Answer. I recognize the importance of long distance routes and the national network. If confirmed, I am committed to working with Amtrak leadership and Congress on this issue, and that includes funding. As a board member, I will have a 

fiduciary relationship to the Corporation with the mission being set forth by Congress. 

Question 2. Amtrak has historically been a strong example of a public-private 

partnership that promotes our tourism economy by allowing privately owned certified rail cars to hitch on to Amtrak trains, connecting Americans to the rich history of our expansive rail network. Importantly, this partnership also provides Amtrak with a source of revenue. Recently however, Amtrak has taken on practices 

that discourage private rail cars from paying to be hitched to Amtrak trains, including removing or refusing cars without advanced notice and unpredictable pricing. 

Will you commit to supporting and improving Amtrak’s public-private partnership 

with privately owned rail cars? 

Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will do all I can to work on a mutually agreeable solution to this important matter. 

Question 3. What steps will you take to inject transparency and certainty into private rail car policies and pricing? 

Answer. I come from Florida where the open-meeting Sunshine Laws exist, so my 

preexisting philosophy and practice is to be open and transparent as I believe that 

is the best system for accountability. I will work to bring these beliefs and practices 

to all that I do at Amtrak, including the Corporation’s private rail car policies and 

pricing. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO JOSEPH GRUTERS

Question 1. Amtrak Long Distance Service: Mr. Gruters, I wanted to raise the importance of Amtrak passenger rail service through northern Nevada. My communities of Elko, Winnemucca, and Reno rely on the Amtrak service provided by the 

California Zephyr Amtrak line, including the 88,000 Nevada riders who travel on 

the line. Just to give you sense of the impact, the Mayor Putam of Winnemucca, 

a community of around 7,300 people that is a focal point in the region, wrote me 

stating that ‘‘Rural Nevada needs your help. The [Amtrak] train service is an important part of the economic vitality and social fabric of my community. Many of our 

veterans and seniors use Amtrak to access medical services in Reno and other areas.’’ 

And as stated by the railroad itself: Amtrak works with Key Holidays, a tour operator, to operate ‘‘Fun Trains’’ and ‘‘Snow Trains,’’ which are special trains that carry 

thousands of passengers from the Bay Area to Reno. Many of these passengers go on 

to visit ski resorts and other recreational areas near Lake Tahoe during winter 

months when airports and highways are often disabled or shut down. 

95 

So you see the impact and benefit this service provides to Northern Nevada. Now 

I have received messages of concern that Amtrak management has started actively 

discussing breaking up long-distance routes to reallocate resources to state corridors. While we don’t yet know how far these discussions have advanced, recent 

Amtrak moves to cut back food & beverage service on two long-distance services and 

eliminate station agents in 15 more National Network communities has forced us 

to act. In your questionnaire, you raise concerns about the need for Amtrak to lower 

their operating losses. However, as I’ve just stressed, some long distance lines are 

critical transportation networks, but may be difficult to turn a profit. 

If you had to choose between lowering operating losses or shutting down a long 

distance line—which would you choose? 

Answer. If confirmed, I would work on ways avoid any such either/or situation by 

supporting efforts to create efficiencies throughout the system. I believe we need to 

seek solutions that have the maximum possible impact with the least possible disruption to existing service lines, ridership and staffing. 

Question 2. Do you commit to protecting Amtrak’s long distance service, including 

whatever line or service is serving Nevada? 

Answer. It would be difficult for me to support your nomination with this uncertainty related to Amtrak service hanging over three of the vital communities in Nevada. 

I recognize the importance of long distance service and as a result will keep an 

open mind and am willing to work with you and your staff on specific issues. If confirmed, I commit to working closely with Amtrak and Congress to understand any 

impacts or changes to specific services or lines. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JON TESTER TO

JOSEPH GRUTERS

Question 1. Safeguarding Long-Distance Service Across Rural America: Montanans value and rely on Amtrak for travel to jobs, school, family and vacation destinations. The media report that Amtrak is contemplating either discontinuing or 

reducing the number of days that Amtrak provides service on its long-distance lines, 

such as the Empire Builder line that crosses the full width of Montana. 

Do you agree that Amtrak’s long-distance routes are critical to connecting people 

and communities in rural America and should be safeguarded? 

Answer. I recognize the importance of long distance routes and the national network to communities in rural America. If confirmed, I am committed to working 

with Amtrak leadership and Congress. I will be open to hearing the concerns of 

those impacted by this issue. As a Board member I have a fiduciary relationship 

to the Corporation with the mission being set forth by Congress. 

Question 2. What will you do to ensure that Amtrak will not reduce the level of 

service on its long-distance lines operating through rural America during your term 

as a member of Amtrak’s Board? 

Answer. I recognize the importance of long distance routes and the national network. If confirmed, I am committed to working with Amtrak leadership and Congress. I will be open to hearing the concerns of those impacted by this issue. As a 

Board member I have a fiduciary relationship to the Corporation with the mission 

being set forth by Congress. 

Question 3. Will you pledge that Amtrak will consult lawmakers and the public 

in a transparent and timely way prior to any changes to long-distance lines’ funding 

and service? 

Answer. I come from Florida where the open-meetings Sunshine Laws exist, so 

my preexisting philosophy and practice is to be open, transparent, and responsive. 

I believe that is the best system for accountability. As a member of the Board, I 

will work to bring these beliefs and practices to all that I do at Amtrak, including 

the Corporation’s private rail car policies and pricing. 

Question 4. Maintaining On-Site Personnel at Amtrak Stations in Rural America: 

There are reports that Amtrak will eliminate completely on-site staff at several stations in Montana starting in June 2018. This imposes an onerous and disproportionate burden on rural-based passengers. Eliminating on-site staff at stations 

forces travelers to purchase tickets on-line—which is problematic when access to reliable Internet in rural America is spotty. (Nearly 23 percent in Montana do not 

have access to a single provider of broadband services.) An alternative is for customers to come to the station, hope that there will be space available to board the 

train and if so, be required to purchase tickets at the highest fare per Amtrak policy. Decisions that result in such a scenario are unreasonable and just wrong. Will 

96 

you commit to reversing the practice of leaving rural-based passengers without any 

on-site staff support at Amtrak stations? 

Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working with Amtrak leadership and Congress 

on this issue. I will be open to hearing the concerns of those impacted. I have a 

fiduciary relationship as a member of the Corporate Board with a mission set forth 

by Congress. 

Question 5. States Matching Federal Funding to Cover Long-Distant Train Service 

Operating Costs: In the FY 2019 budget, the Administration states that reliance on 

Federal subsidies to operate long-distance train routes should be reduced. The Administration proposes to do that by having states match Federal funding to cover 

operating costs for long-distance routes. 

Given the constrained fiscal realities facing many state governments, what would 

you expect to be the outcome if that strategy is adopted? 

Answer. If confirmed, I commit to learning more about this issue and gaining a 

greater understanding of the impact of increasing cost share for state-supported 

routes. 

Question 6. Do you support this financing strategy? 

Answer. As I am yet not a member of the Board, I would need to learn more about 

the impact and specific details of this proposed financing strategy. If confirmed, I 

commit to working with Amtrak leadership and Congress to understand state supported routes and the impact of increasing the cost-share for states. In terms of carrying out any policies, I have a fiduciary relationship as a member of the Corporate 

Board with a mission set forth by Congress. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DAN SULLIVAN TO

JENNIFER L. HOMENDY

Question 1. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), or drones, continue to be used for 

variety of purposes in Alaska and across the country, including for pipeline safety, 

innovation within the oil and gas sector, and numerous other recreational and commercial activities. Because of the enormous role aviation plays in Alaska, particularly with our diverse geography and enormous airspace, we have long led the way 

in developing innovative measures and partnerships to ensure our aviation systems 

are safe, reliable and accessible for all users. Last week, the Department of Transportation named the University of Alaska, Fairbanks as one of 10 sites nationwide 

selected for the highly competitive FAA UAS Integration Pilot Program. This is a 

positive step to ensuring the development and advancement of the rules governing 

UAS are made with the input, real-world applications and knowledge of Alaskan 

stakeholders. 

In your new role, will you ensure the agency shares what it has learned to date 

from investigations of previous accidents, so that our test sites are aware of NTSB 

recommendations on how in regards to safety challenges affiliated with these rapidly changing technologies? 

Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will ensure that the NTSB shares with Alaska’s test 

sites what it has learned to date from completed investigations of accidents or incidents involving UAS. 

Question 2. Can you tell me what the agency does to ensure employees have access to needed expertise that exists in private industry to investigate in a field with 

rapidly changing technologies? 

Answer. Transportation technologies continue to advance and it is critical that the 

NTSB, like all Federal agencies, remain aligned with changing trends. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115–141), Congress provided the NTSB 

with $4.4 million for Emerging Transportation Technologies, which will largely be 

used for additional training for NTSB staff and to support continued outreach with 

other investigative agencies and industry stakeholders regarding the latest innovations. An additional $3.6 million is included in the NTSB’s Fiscal Year 2019 Budget 

Request sent to Congress on February 12, 2018. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. DEAN HELLER TO

JENNIFER L. HOMENDY

Question. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Federal government is looking 

at shipping 9,495 rail casks in 2,800 trains and 2,650 trucks hauling one cask each 

to Yucca Mountain over 50 years. These shipments would use 22,000 miles of railways and 7,000 miles of highways and cross over 44 states. Under previous questioning from me at this Committee, Federal Railroad Administrator Ronald Batory 

97 

and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administrator Howard Elliott confirmed that a transportation accident with an ensuing radiological release was possible. 

Ms. Homendy, you testified that even if all of the National Transportation Safety 

Board-recommended safety measures were to be implemented, the risk of transporting nuclear waste would not be eliminated. 

Given your assessment that we cannot engineer out 100 percent of the risk and 

given the significant number of proposed shipments, the sheer distance to be traveled, and the 50-year duration of these shipments, do you agree with Mr. Batory 

and Mr. Elliott that there is a real risk of at least one transportation accident with 

an ensuing radiological release occurring? 

Answer. According to the Association of American Railroads, there has never been 

a release as a result of a rail shipment of spent nuclear fuel (SNF). But, in 2016, 

there were just eight shipments of SNF (defense-related) out of about 2.2 million 

rail shipments of hazardous materials. As you noted, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, shipments would substantially increase. 

The Federal Railroad Administration reports in its ‘‘Safety Compliance Oversight 

Plan for Transportation of High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel’’ 

that 75 to 90 percent of SNF and high-level radioactive waste (HLRW) will be transported by rail under the proposal. An increase in rail traffic of SNF and HLRW 

could increase the risk of an accident with an ensuing radiological release. Even 

with the strongest safety measures in place, it would be impossible to say with 100 

percent certainty that an accident could never occur. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

JENNIFER L. HOMENDY

Question 1. FIU Pedestrian Bridge Collapse: Ms. Homendy, the NTSB is currently 

investigating a pedestrian bridge collapse at Florida International University. Six 

people were tragically killed when the bridge was reportedly in the process of being 

tested and fell on to a state road that was open to traffic. This incident raised many 

safety issues. As a result, I asked the DOT IG to examine the oversight roles of all 

parties on the project as part of its audit into the bridge collapse. 

Do I have your commitment that, if confirmed, you will quickly get up to speed 

on the NTSB’s own investigation into the collapse and that you will ensure it thoroughly examines whether federal, state and local authorities conducted sufficient 

oversight and inspections of the bridge’s construction? 

Answer. Yes, Senator Nelson. I know how important this investigation is to you 

and the families of those that were tragically killed in the bridge collapse. If confirmed, I will quickly get up to speed on the NTSB’s investigation of the collapse 

and I will ensure that it conducts a thorough examination of all the matters surrounding the collapse, including whether federal, state, and local authorities conducted sufficient oversight and inspections of the bridge’s construction. 

Question 2. El Faro: Ms. Homendy, The NTSB has made dozens of recommendations to address the horrible tragedy of the sinking of the El Faro cargo ship during 

Hurricane Joaquin. That accident happened in 2015 and it’s high time that steps 

be taken so that such a catastrophe never takes place again. 

Ms. Homendy, if confirmed, will you work to make sure that the agencies properly 

implement NTSB’s recommendations to help make sure such a tragedy never happens again? 

Answer. Yes, Senator Nelson. I have read the report and I am familiar with the 

safety recommendations that were issued as a result of the accident investigation. 

As you know, over the past 14 years, I have focused on rail, pipelines, and hazardous materials safety. If confirmed, I will quickly get up to speed on marine safety 

so I can advocate for swift implementation of these important safety recommendations and work to ensure such a tragedy never happens again. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

JENNIFER L. HOMENDY

Question. There is a new and emerging field in our transportation system: driverless vehicles. These vehicles pose a number of safety concerns. 

What kind of role should the NTSB play in investigating and understanding incidents related to autonomous vehicles? 

Answer. The NTSB is an independent Federal agency that investigates accidents 

in all modes of transportation to determine what caused them and to make recVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:39 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57803.TXT JACKIE
98 

ommendations aimed at preventing future accidents. The NTSB has considerable expertise in evaluating human performance and the introduction of automation into 

complex human-centric systems across all of the modes of transportation. I believe 

the Board’s considerable knowledge and its thorough work in investigating and analyzing traffic crashes related to autonomous vehicles is invaluable in ensuring these 

technologies are implemented safety. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO JENNIFER L. HOMENDY

Question 1. Safety Concerns with Moving Nuclear Waste: Ms. Homendy, I appreciate our discussion on the need for a higher bar of safety for the movement of hazardous materials in America, especially the potential of thousands and thousands 

of rail casks and trucks hauling spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste 

through the country. 

I know we were short on time, so I wanted to ask again, and provide you the opportunity, to outline the broad set of rail and labor safety regulatory efforts that 

have been legislated, or even recommended by the NTSB, that have not been put 

into effect yet. 

Answer. Congress mandated a number of important safety measures in the Rail 

Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110–432), some of which were based on 

NTSB recommendations, but have not been implemented yet. These include requirements for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to: 

• establish minimum training standards for each class and craft of safety-related 

railroad employee; 

• prescribe standards, guidance, regulations, or orders governing the development, use, and implementation of rail safety technology in non-signaled territory, known as dark territory, such as switch position monitoring devices which 

detect misaligned switches; 

• require railroads to develop and implement railroad safety risk reduction programs and fatigue management plans (that consider medical conditions such as 

sleep apnea); and 

• require railroads to provide emergency escape breathing apparatus for all crewmembers in locomotive cabs with freight trains carrying certain hazardous materials. 

In addition, the railroads have not fully implemented positive train control (PTC) 

which was mandated in the 2008 Act, and the FRA has not updated its ‘‘Safety 

Compliance Oversight Plan for Transportation of High-Level Radioactive Waste and 

Spent Nuclear Fuel’’ since 1998. 

Two additional areas I would mention are fatigue and the use of audio and video 

recording devices. The NTSB recommends that all safety-sensitive employees be 

screened for obstructive sleep apnea, and that audio and video recording devices be 

installed in all modes of transportation, including in locomotive cabs. These two recommendations have not been implemented yet and are necessary to ensure the 

highest levels of safety. 

Question 2. Do you believe that railroad personnel and emergency responders 

have been adequately provided the training needed to handle the transportation of 

high-level radioactive waste? 

Answer. The FRA has not updated its ‘‘Safety Compliance Oversight Plan for 

Transportation of High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel’’ since 

1998. While it includes some training requirements for railroad personnel, consistent with existing Federal standards, railroad personnel transporting spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste require more advanced training to ensure 

the highest levels of safety. 

With respect to emergency responders, the National Fire Protection Association 

reports that nearly 40 percent of all fire personnel receive the lowest level of hazardous materials training, called general awareness. General awareness training is 

intended to train an individual to recognize a hazardous materials incident and take 

appropriate steps to call emergency responders. It is not appropriate for emergency 

responders themselves. Operations-level training, the next level up, is intended to 

train personnel to take initial steps during a hazardous materials incident to protect 

life and property. Operations-level training, at a minimum, should be provided to 

all fire personnel to ensure safety. 

99 

As you are aware, as part of the NTSB’s report on the Casselton, North Dakota 

crude by rail derailment, the board looked at rail braking technology titled Electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, or ECP for short. 

Question 3. Are you familiar with this technology, and are you aware that from 

that report, the previous NTSB Chairman Christopher Hart stated ‘‘Over the last 

decade, the NTSB has investigated a number of catastrophic flammable liquid unit 

train derailments. Our recommendations have called for improved technologies that 

can reduce or minimize the risk of derailments. Improved braking capabilities are 

but one part of the equation in making rail transportation safer.’’? 

Furthermore, on the ECP brakes, Mr. Sumwalt stated that in a ‘‘study performed 

by our staff, it was determined that ECP brake systems out-performed distributed 

power configurations and conventional brake systems.’’ 

Answer. Yes, I am aware that the NTSB conducted two safety studies which 

found that ECP brakes outperformed distributed power and conventional braking. 

Question 4. Do you have any reason to contradict this peer-reviewed analysis? 

Answer. No. 

Question 5. There is also the technology of Positive Train Control that you noted 

in your statement, where the mandate is now 10 years old and is still a ways from 

being fully implemented, correct? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 6. As everyone knows, this is lifesaving technology that the NTSB has 

identified to have been able to prevent over 150 rail accidents just that the NTSB 

has investigated, you concur with that estimate and that this is essential, life-saving 

technology for the rail industry? 

Answer. PTC is essential, life-saving technology. The NTSB has been recommending implementation of PTC for nearly 50 years. In that time, the NTSB has 

completed 151 investigations of rail accidents that could have been prevented with 

PTC; two additional PTC-preventable rail accidents are undergoing investigations. 

These 153 accidents have resulted in nearly 300 fatalities and 7,000 injuries. Some 

railroads have made progress; others have a lot of work to do. What concerns me 

most are the lives that could be lost between now and when PTC is fully implemented and operational. 

Question 7. Technology and the Necessary Guardrails: Obviously, we’re in an innovation age where many technological developments are driving economic expansion and can help society in a variety of ways. 

I wanted to ask from your perspective, whether you agree with many of us on the 

Commerce Committee that there are needed guardrails within these technologies 

that will have to be put in place for various elements like higher levels of safety, 

cyber security, privacy, wouldn’t you agree? I ask because Nevada is at the forefront 

of these technologies, that’s why I’m working to continue to lead an Innovation State 

initiative. 

Answer. There are many new and emerging technologies that have the potential 

to improve safety, but there are also safety risks that need to be fully evaluated and 

mitigated. 

Question 8. As we’re looking at legislation in the Congress, do you believe these 

needed guardrails must be considered and addressed? 

Answer. I believe that safety should always be considered and addressed, and I 

believe the NTSB can play a valuable role in those discussions. The NTSB has considerable expertise in evaluating human performance and the introduction of automation into complex human-centric systems across all of the modes of transportation. For example, I believe the Board’s considerable knowledge and thorough 

work in investigating and analyzing traffic crashes related to autonomous vehicles 

is invaluable in ensuring these technologies are implemented safely. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN THUNE TO

HEIDI KING

Question. Ethanol is an affordable and comparatively clean source of octane. As 

the agency considers CAFE standards for future model years, to what extent does 

NHTSA anticipate a greater role for vehicles with high-compression engines running 

on higher octane ethanol blend fuels such as E15? 

Answer. High-octane fuels, regardless of their source, can significantly reduce 

knocking and allow for development and deployment of high compression ratio engines. These engines can achieve greater fuel economy performance. Conceptually, 

if the market were to adopt a higher base standard of octane, the agency would anticipate automakers may design vehicles with higher-compression ratio engines, 

100 

thereby achieving a higher base level fuel economy. NHTSA and EPA are considering technologies for improved fuel economy including higher octane blend fuels. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ROGER F. WICKER TO

HEIDI KING

Question 1. There were approximately 755 child vehicular heat stroke fatalities 

in the U.S. between 1990 and 2015—including 26 in Mississippi. I believe these 

tragic deaths are easily preventable. I cosponsored a provision in the AV bill that 

would require automakers to install rear seat reminders in new vehicles to prevent 

children from being unintentionally left in the back seat. 

I’ve heard concerns regarding the cost of implementing child rear seat reminders 

in new vehicles. This safety feature is already standard in some vehicles. As autonomous vehicle technology continues to improve, would you agree that this safety feature will become easier and cheaper to implement in new vehicles? 

Answer. Thank you for your attention to this important safety issue and your 

leadership in raising awareness. I agree with you that these tragic, heart-breaking 

deaths are preventable. I am aware that there are technological solutions currently 

being researched and developed, as well as several solutions that are being tested 

and even incorporated in existing vehicles on the market today. I am optimistic that 

advances in vehicle technology will make it easier and cheaper to implement such 

technology in new vehicles in the near future, and that consumers will drive adoption of such technologies. 

Question 2. With tragic incidents continuing at an alarming pace, I do not believe 

simple public service announcements are doing enough to address the issue. What 

actions do you think the auto makers can take to help prevent these senseless 

deaths? 

Answer. Automakers can and will continue to research and develop technology 

that will remind parents or vehicle operators to check the rear seats for a child passenger. Whether it is by reminding them through a call or text to their cellphone 

when the interior temperature reaches a certain temperature, or alerting passersby 

through vehicle horns or flashing lights. As you know, many of these tragic incidents also involve children who let themselves into a parked vehicle without the 

owner’s awareness. Technology that would prevent such incidents is just as important to an overall solution. 

Question 3. What administrative actions beyond just public service announcements can NHTSA take to help address the serious issue of child vehicular heat 

stroke fatalities? 

Answer. NHTSA works to share data and information and to identify potential 

best practice approaches to mitigate hyperthermia cases. In addition, the agency has 

conducted meetings with safety stakeholders to provide an opportunity to discuss 

ways to collaborate and improve ongoing efforts to raise awareness on this important safety issue. Further, NHTSA is working with safety advocates, caregivers, and 

the auto industry to educate the public about the dangers of heat stroke in cars, 

and the agency is conducting research about the best methods and technologies to 

end these tragic and preventable deaths. 

NHTSA developed and made available research test procedures that technology 

companies, vehicle manufactures, and inventors can use to evaluate how a system 

performs under different real world scenarios. You may find of particular interest 

this 2015 report addressing the functional assessment of unattended child reminder 

systems. 

Question 4. Toyota recently announced that it would be deploying vehicles with 

DSRC systems by 2021. 

Can you comment on whether NHTSA supports preserving the 5.9 GHz spectrum 

band for vehicle-to-vehicle communications and other vehicle safety applications? 

Answer. Safety is the Department of Transportation’s top priority. It is DOT and 

NHTSA’s hope to preserve the spectrum for transportation lifesaving technologies. 

Question 5. Is NHTSA collaborating with the FCC and NTIA on the open proceeding at the FCC that is looking into spectrum sharing in the 5.9 GHz band? If 

yes, can you provide an update on your discussions with those agencies? 

Answer. NHTSA, in partnership with relevant Federal agencies, has continued to 

pursue further research and testing of the 5.9 GHz spectrum band. The agency is 

working closely with NTIA and the FCC, and its technical experts and staff have 

shared data and results and are coordinating efforts. I hope to provide additional 

information on the status of our joint progress in the near future. 

101 

Question 6. Does the agency have the adequate number of resources to handle 

dealing with new technologies in vehicles? How do you see safety regulation evolving as cars increasingly employ crash avoidance technologies? 

Answer. The budget request lays the groundwork for NHTSA to respond effectively to the changing technological environment and address new safety challenges 

proactively. More specifically, NHTSA requested nearly $38 million for Vehicle Safety Research and Analysis, including a dedicated $10 million set-aside for Automated 

Driving Systems research. NHTSA has identified the need for increased emphasis 

on crash avoidance technologies with significant potential to reduce fatalities and 

injuries by preventing the crash from occurring; reducing the severity of crashes 

through automatic braking or steering interventions; or by providing timely warnings to the driver. NHTSA recognizes that the rapid pace of technological change 

requires the agency to adapt, and to that end, the agency is performing extensive 

research into the need to adjust current standards to recognize new vehicle safety 

technologies. 

Question 7. NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program rates vehicles to determine 

crash worthiness. I understand that NHTSA intends to update the program to reflect new safety technologies. Future direction of the New Car Assessment Program 

(NCAP) is not clear. The second Request for Comment of the proposed new NCAP 

was released and immediately withdrawn due to the ‘‘Regulatory Freeze’’ in early 

2017. There has not been any clear indication how NTHSA will proceed with this 

proposal. What actions do you intend to take at NTHSA to move this program forward? 

Answer. NHTSA continues to evaluate the best manner in which to improve consumer understanding of advanced safety technologies. In 2018, the agency plans to 

engage stakeholders on its next actions for NCAP—the public comments received in 

response to the 2015 notice demonstrated the need for a dialogue regarding the 

types of information that would be most helpful to consumers and the types of tests 

and rating systems would be best suited to achieve program goals. NHTSA plans 

to give consideration to advanced driver assistance systems that have the potential 

to further automotive safety. If confirmed, I plan to focus agency efforts on how the 

program can most effectively deliver information to the public. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DAN SULLIVAN TO

HEIDI KING

Question 1. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

there were 81 traffic fatalities in Anchorage between 2010 and 2014. Although 5 

percent of people walk, bike, and ride motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation in Anchorage, combined they make up 52 percent of the traffic fatalities. 

Working with the Municipality of Anchorage and Bike Anchorage, ‘‘Vision Zero’’ 

is an Anchorage based community commitment to reduce the loss of life and major 

injuries on roadways to zero. This effort is using a data-driven and coordinated approach to designing safer streets, public education, evaluating what works, and enforcing the best laws. 

Can you tell me what NHTSA is doing to work with local partners to identify specific traffic safety problems at the State and local levels? 

Answer. The Alaska Highway Safety Office 2018 Highway Safety Plan includes 

performance targets to reduce both pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities. There are two 

projects included in Alaska’s plan which address this issue. One project will engage 

community stakeholders in the Anchorage area, especially the business community, 

in addressing pedestrian safety issues in high risk areas. The second project will 

fund various bicycle and pedestrian safety projects in the State that are identified 

in the state’s plan, which was developed by the Alaska State Department of Transportation in collaboration with other stakeholders including the highway safety office. 

Thanks to Congress, the FAST Act also authorized a new non-motorized grant 

program. NHTSA awarded these grants to States with combined pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities greater than 15 percent of the total motor vehicle related fatalities. 

In FY 2018, 23 states (including Alaska), Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia 

qualified for non-motorized safety grants. 

Question 2. What countermeasures are available to curtail the high fatality rates? 

Answer. NHTSA’s Office of Regional Operations and Program Delivery administers more than $500 million in grant programs annually to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Territories and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Under Section 405, NHTSA awards grants for occupant protection, state traffic safety information systems, impaired driving countermeasures, distracted driving, moVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:39 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57803.TXT JACKIE
102 

torcyclist safety, non-motorized safety, and State graduated driver licensing laws. 

Regional offices help states identify their highway safety problems using data, 

evaluate safety programs and activities, and provide technical assistance and training to State program managers. 

NHTSA facilitates: 

Occupant Protection Assessment 

Impaired Driving Program Assessment 

Traffic Records Assessment 

Pedestrian Safety Program Assessment 

Emergency Medical Services Assessment 

Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Assessment 

Driver Education Assessment 

Motorcycle Safety Assessment 

To further support local efforts, NHTSA offers marketing tools for numerous traffic safety campaigns, including drunk driving, car seats, vehicle safety, distracted 

driving, and motorcycles at https://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DEAN HELLER TO

HEIDI KING

Question 1. As you know, I authored a provision with Senator Markey to ensure 

crash avoidance technologies are incorporated into safety ratings for cars. I appreciate you responding to me with an update about including these technologies in the 

safety rating, but it didn’t provide a timeline for completion. Can you provide me 

with a timeline for a rulemaking and a deadline on when you intend to complete 

it? 

Answer. We plan to continue our efforts to update NCAP by following our process 

for public engagement, including a public meeting during summer 2018. The timing 

and content of the rulemaking to add crash avoidance information to the Monroney 

label will be determined from the results of our public engagement process this summer and fall 2018. 

Question 2. I authored a provision in the FAST Act that would allow small kit 

car manufacturers to sell up to 325 completed replica vehicles in the U.S. each year. 

The provision was straightforward, but it has not been implemented yet. Can 

NHTSA issue an interim rule allowing companies to register and begin production 

immediately while the agency works on a rule? Can I have your commitment companies will be able to start producing replica cars by August of this year? 

Answer. An interim final rule would require a ‘‘good cause’’ exception from the 

notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. NHTSA is 

drafting the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to address replica vehicles, and 

working to publish the notice in the Federal register in May 2018. The timing and 

content of a final rule will be determined following the public comment process of 

the NPRM. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TODD YOUNG TO

HEIDI KING

Question 1. Ms. King, on April 2 of this year, the Administration issued a formal 

notice indicating the upcoming review of the emissions standards for model year 

2022 to 2025 light duty vehicles. I welcome this Administration’s attention to this 

important economic issue. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards are an 

important issue for the state of Indiana. The Hoosier state is the most manufacturing intensive state in the country which is in large part is driven by Indiana’s 

status as a top-five automotive manufacturing state, with nearly half a million Hoosiers employed in the sector. I would urge NHTSA, in conjunction with the EPA, 

to dialogue with a wide range of stakeholders throughout this process. It is of utmost importance for the administration to dialogue with a diverse set of stakeholders, including consumers, to ensure standards are technologically feasible, economically efficient, and preserve vehicle choice. If confirmed, could you speak to 

your plans regarding how NHTSA will ensure the diverse coalition of stakeholders 

will be represented in the rulemaking process? 

Answer. I agree that the upcoming standards need to be technologically feasible, 

economically efficient, and preserve consumer choice. NHTSA has met extensively 

with a wide variety of stakeholders to gather information as we have developed our 

103 

proposal, and we look forward to gathering more information from more stakeholders as part of the public comment process once the proposal is public. In addition, NHTSA is considering public meetings on aspects of the rule to enhance transparency for all stakeholders. 

Question 2. Ms. King, in your tenure as Deputy Administrator at NHTSA, you 

have been involved in a multitude of important transportation safety issues. In 

March, NHTSA launched an initiative to combat drug-impaired driving on our roadways. In my home state of Indiana, the opioid crisis continues to trouble numerous 

Hoosier communities. If confirmed, could you speak to your plans for combatting the 

opioid crisis on our transportation network? How can Congress partner with NHTSA 

to further empower your efforts? 

Answer. Last year, President Trump identified the opioid epidemic as a public 

health emergency; we lost at least 64,000 neighbors, friends, and family members 

to drug overdose, primarily from opioids. Unfortunately, we don’t know the full extent to which drug-impaired drivers were involved in crashes, but we do know that 

impaired driving is illegal and deadly. We also know that our partners in law enforcement are seeing drug-impaired drivers on our roads and in the courts every 

day. 

Combatting drug-impaired driving requires proven strategies and innovative practices. Across the country, NHTSA-sponsored programs like the Advanced Roadside 

Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training and the Drug Recognition Expert 

(DRE) program, which is especially robust in Indiana, help law enforcement professionals to remove drug-impaired drivers from behind the wheel. NHTSA also provides training for toxicologists and prosecutors to enhance the functioning of the 

criminal justice system. 

Like other states, Indiana’s system for dealing with opioid-impaired driving is not 

without its challenges. There is currently a five-month delay on drug analysis for 

chemical testing samples due to a backlog of samples. In addition, Indiana’s chemical testing equipment does not have the capability to do drug confirmations on samples which screen positive for opioids, meaning the sample must be sent out of State 

for confirmation. Efforts to remedy these problems are currently underway. 

As NHTSA continues its initiative to combat drug-impaired driving, we are engaging stakeholders through listening sessions to identify best practices and program 

needs. We know there are needs both in the criminal justice community and in the 

toxicology realm so we will convene experts from across the country to clarify what 

the gaps are. NHTSA is also committed to improving the science behind the impairing effects of drugs on driving safety. From these activities, NHTSA will define a 

path for eliminating drug-impaired driving from our roads. 

In 2018, Congress appropriated $5 million for NHTSA to enhance its efforts to reduce impaired driving. These funds will support NHTSA’s new drug-impaired driving initiative. Further, the funds will help us to develop robust and effective public 

education tools that focus on the message that impaired driving includes both alcohol and other drugs. Your attention and support are a significant contribution to 

finding solutions to this challenging issue, and we look forward to further collaboration on this lifesaving activity. 

Question 3. Ms. King, NHTSA is at the heart of the autonomous vehicle debate. 

As Congress works arduously to pass the AV Start Act in this year, NHTSA’s work 

in the AV space continues. Earlier this spring, two notices were posted on the Unified Agenda of Regulatory & Deregulatory Actions—notably removing barriers for 

Automated Driving Systems and removing barriers for innovative motor vehicle 

technologies. Can you please speak to how these notices may or may not inform the 

work on the proposed rule for vehicle-to-vehicle communication standards? 

Answer. With the Request for Comments notices published earlier this year, 

NHTSA sought public comments regarding the update of regulations to adapt to 

new technologies. The comment period closed on March 20, 2018 to which we received 97 submissions. The agency is conducting a thorough analysis of each of 

these public comments and determining appropriate actions to take moving forward. 

Any public comment to this recent RFC pertaining to V2V will be taken in account 

and considered along with the comments submitted to the V2V NPRM published in 

December 2016. 

Question 4. Ms. King, NHTSA’s work is vital to ensuring violations of emissions 

standards, like the recent Volkswagen emissions scandal, does not occur again. In 

regards to diesel vehicles approved for sale, how does NHTSA plan to monitor the 

vehicles fixed with reported upgrades to ensure they will safely and reliably operate 

on U.S. highways? 

Answer. NHTSA is responsible for setting and enforcing fuel economy and safety 

standards for vehicles. The Volkswagen emissions issue centered on a violation of 

104 

emission standards that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates and 

enforces. However, if the vehicle fixes turn out to present an unreasonable risk to 

safety, NHTSA will work with the manufacturers to ensure that the safety defects 

are recalled and corrected. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

HEIDI KING

Question 1. The Takata Recall: At your hearing, I asked whether you would commit to requiring each automaker covered by the Takata recalls to post a public plan 

detailing the specific steps it will take to improve recall completion rates. You did 

not provide a clear ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ answer to my request. Therefore, I ask you to require that all automakers covered by the Takata recalls to post a public, written 

commitment on NHTSA’s website by no later than June 30, 2018 that lays out all 

specific steps the automaker will take to meet or exceed the recall completion rate 

schedule set in the Third Amendment to the Coordinated Remedy Order, including, 

at a minimum, new outreach methods and incentives to help reach impacted vehicle 

owners and whether the automaker will provide rental or loaner cars, or another 

form of alternate transportation, to consumers while they are waiting for their vehicles to be repaired. 

In addition, I would like to know what specific enforcement actions, including, but 

not limited to, civil penalties, you intend to take if automakers do not comply with 

this request or fail to meet recall completion targets. 

Answer. Yes, I will engage with each automaker affected by the Takata recalls 

on providing a public plan regarding the specific steps it will take to improve its 

recall completion rates. I share your commitment to transparency and NHTSA has 

made efforts to provide extensive information on these recalls on its website at 

www.nhtsa.gov/takata. 

NHTSA maintains robust authority and oversight of these recalls and will not 

hesitate to take decisive action—including enforcement action—as warranted. As 

necessary and appropriate, NHTSA will use its available tools, which could include 

compelling additional information through special orders or subpoenas, issuing new 

orders requiring additional action authorized under the Vehicle Safety Act, or taking civil penalty action for violations of law. 

I thank you again for all of your efforts to draw attention to this critical safety 

issue. 

Question 2. Suspected Carbon Monoxide Intrusion in Ford Explorer Vehicles: At 

the hearing, I asked you about the status of NHTSA’s investigation into carbon 

monoxide intrusion in 2011–2017 Ford Explorers. This investigation has now been 

underway for more than 22 months, and NHTSA has received thousands of complaints of carbon monoxide exposure, including dozens of reported injuries. In response, you said, ‘‘I’m happy to provide more information on that ongoing recall; 

they’ve made great progress, and I’m looking forward to sharing more information.’’ 

Please provide a detailed update on the status of this investigation, including a 

description of what progress has been made and a timeline for its conclusion. 

A recall has not been publicly announced. Does your reference to a recall at the 

hearing indicate that NHTSA plans to announce a recall, or are you referring to 

Ford’s current ‘‘customer satisfaction program’’ for these vehicles? 

If a formal recall is planned, please details the proposed scope and timing of such 

recall. 

Answer. It was my intention to highlight Ford’s ongoing ‘‘customer satisfaction 

campaign,’’ not any specific recall. Ford has had this campaign active since late last 

year to provide customers with a solution to complaints they (and NHTSA) have received. The campaign is targeted at both Explorers used by Police fleets as well as 

Explorers used by civilians. NHTSA investigation of this issue continues as we 

evaluate this solution. NHTSA has noticed a drop in consumer complaints in recent 

months since the campaign has begun. 

Question 3. Recall Completion Rates: Last year, as required by the FAST Act, 

NHTSA issued a report to Congress on safety recall competition rates that revealed 

that competition rates are far too low. In fact, only 67 percent of passenger motor 

vehicle recalls were remedied in 2014 according to the report. The FAST Act also 

required the agency to issue a final rule by August 2016 permitting consumers to 

receive notices of safety recalls via e-mail to help increase recall completion rates. 

Yet, the agency has yet to complete this rulemaking. 

Please provide an update on this rulemaking and the reason for the delay. 

Answer. NHTSA initiated a rulemaking in October 2012 to address the provision 

in Section 24104 of the FAST Act to allow electronic notification methods for vehicle 

105 

recalls. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was issued by the agency on 

January 25, 2016, and was followed with the publication of an NPRM on 

September 1, 2016. The agency is currently evaluating comments to determine next 

steps. 

Question 4. At the hearing, you answered a question from Senator Inhofe pledging 

to consider ‘‘economic practicality’’ when evaluating CAFE standards. However, the 

law directs NHTSA to set CAFE standards according to ‘‘maximum feasible average 

fuel economy.’’ Economic practicality is only one component of that mandate. In addition, the Secretary is required to also consider technological feasibility, the effect 

of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need 

of the United States to conserve energy. 

Please explain your concept of ‘‘economic practicability’’ and how you intend to 

evaluate CAFE standards pursuant to all elements of the statutory mandate. 

Answer. I intend to consider and NHTSA will seek transparent public comment 

in the forthcoming NPRM on all statutory factors including technological feasibility, 

economic practicability, the need of the Nation to conserve energy, and other Federal rules. 

Question 5. New Car Assessment Program: In December 2015, NHTSA proposed 

upgrades to the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). These upgrades included 

provisions requiring more accurate test dummies and injury criteria, pedestrian protection ratings, and evaluations of vehicle safety technology, among many other improvements. 

What is the current status of these proposed upgrades and when can we expect 

to see these improvements integrated in the NCAP system? 

Answer. NHTSA plans to continue our efforts to update NCAP by following our 

process for public engagement, including a public meeting during summer 2018. The 

timing and content of the rulemaking to add crash avoidance information to the 

Monroney label will be determined from the results of our public engagement process during the summer and fall of 2018. 

Question 6. Truck Safety: The National Transportation Safety Board has made 

several recommendations regarding underride guards that have not been completed. 

Every year, lives are tragically lost in truck crash accidents because trucks don’t 

have side underride guards that prevent cars from going under the side of a truck. 

Further improvements to rear underride guards could also prevent cars from going 

underneath the back of a truck. Several families in Florida have experienced this 

tragedy because the life-saving technology is not in place. 

Do you believe it is time to require trucks to have underride guards so no more 

precious lives are lost in such tragic accidents? 

Answer. The agency seeks to take an approach to reducing crashes involving passenger cars impacting the side and rear of commercial motor vehicles taking into 

account all available technologies. I am committed to a data driven approach to reducing these risks, including an examination of all options. This includes an examination of crash avoidance technologies, such as automatic emergency braking (AEB) 

and forward collision warning, to mitigate the severity of these crashes and to prevent them from occurring. NHTSA’s research indicates that these technologies on 

light vehicles have the potential of reducing underride frequency and severity. Improvements to underride guard standards will be evaluated along with the expected 

changes to the vehicle crash environment. 

Question 7. What is your plan to require improvements to rear underride guards 

and the addition of side underride guards on commercial motor vehicles? When will 

DOT implement NTSB’s recommendations? Please provide specific timelines. 

Answer. On December 16, 2015, NHTSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) for upgrading rear impact guards on trailers and semi-trailers. NHTSA is 

reviewing these comments and developing next steps. 

On July 23, 2015, NHTSA issued an ANPRM for improved rear truck underride 

guards and conspicuity tape on single unit trucks. NHTSA estimates that rear 

guards are not cost effective for single unit trucks. NHTSA is considering next steps 

regarding rear impact guards and retroreflective tape for single unit trucks. 

Regarding crash avoidance measures to reduce underride, per an agreement 

reached with automakers in 2016, AEB will be offered as a standard feature in virtually all new light vehicles by September 2022. 

Question 8. Some trailer manufacturers currently have retrofit kits available to 

strengthen existing trailers to enable them to meet the Institute for Highway Safety’s ToughGuard standard. Given the availability of current technology to address 

this challenge, what steps can the agency now take to prevent passenger compartment intrusion and underride fatalities? 

106 

Answer. NHTSA continues to monitor the development of this technology and will 

work with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to ensure that 

truck and fleet operators are aware of safety considerations for trailer repairs. 

FMCSA operates roadside inspection programs for commercial motor vehicles and 

underride guards are inspected as part of these programs. 

Question 9. When will NHTSA release the results of the Texas A&M side 

underride study, which was completed at the end of 2017? 

Answer. The report has been released and is available here. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

HEIDI KING

Question 1. Fuel Standards: Do you agree with the head of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing major automakers, when he testified last week that automakers ‘‘support standards that increase year over year that 

also are consistent with marketplace realities?’’ 

Answer. In the upcoming joint NHTSA–EPA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the 

agency intends to seek comment on a wide range of options, including various degrees of stringency increases year-over-year. I support standards that comply with 

statute and are science-and data-driven. 

Question 2. The Administration’s proposal to gut fuel economy standards effectively means drivers will be forced to hand over to big oil companies thousands of 

dollars more every year in added fuel costs. Do you support measures that will force 

Americans to pay more at the pump, or to be more likely to choose a more fuelefficient foreign produced vehicle? 

Answer. I support standards that comply with statute and are science-and datadriven. 

Question 3. You have stated that NHTSA will set new fuel economy rules for 2022 

to 2025. Will this include revision of Mid Year 2021? 

Answer. NHTSA is considering a range of options in order to ensure compliance 

with statute. 

Question 4. What is your view on the proposed ‘‘one national standard’’ that Administrator Pruitt has mentioned? 

Answer. NHTSA is working closely with the EPA to ensure that automakers can 

comply with one set of requirements to the extent possible within our authorities. 

As I mentioned during the hearing, I support the concept of one national standard. 

Question 5. Over the 40+ year history of the Clean Air Act and the section 209 

waiver for California and other states, the California Air Resources Board has led 

the way in setting regulations for fuel economy and emissions, and NHTSA has 

maintained pace. If EPA were to revoke the Section 209 waiver for California, would 

NHTSA be ready to take the lead on fuel economy standards? CARB uses considerable resources to set standards. How will you increase staff and resources to match 

that production? 

Answer. Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) in 

1975, requiring the U.S. Department of Transportation to set fuel economy standards. The Department has done so ever since. NHTSA has an unparalleled team of 

engineers and attorneys who are experts in this area. The agency also works with 

the U.S. DOT VOLPE Center to perform the analysis necessary and appropriate to 

establish fuel economy standards. 

Question 6. One of the stated rationales for lower fuel economy standards, or 

‘‘rollbacks’’, is that it makes cars more affordable. Do you believe that the CAFE 

program raises the price of cars? Does it raise the price of cars after accounting for 

the cost of fuel? 

Answer. Analysis performed by the U.S. EPA and by NHTSA on the estimated 

cost impact of fuel economy technology indicates that CAFE standards increase the 

price of vehicles. The impact on the price of cars after accounting for the cost of fuel 

depends on many factors, including an individual consumer’s use of the vehicle, how 

long the consumer owns the vehicle, and the price of the fuel. 

Question 7. I believe the most recent scientific analysis disputes the old argument 

that more efficient cars will have to be lighter-weight, meaning they’ll be unsafe because in accidents, so we need to carefully balance safety against efficiency. Researchers from the National Bureau of Economic Research collected weight data for 

vehicles sold in the U.S. from 1954 to 2005, and analyzed reports of 17 million 

crashes from 1989 through 2005. They found quote ‘‘on net CAFE reduced fataliVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:39 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57803.TXT JACKIE
107 

ties.’’ Given this data, will you follow the best available science when weighing 

CAFE standards against safety concerns? 

Answer. Safety is the U.S. Department of Transportation’s top priority. NHTSA 

will continue to use the best available science in determining standards such as 

CAFE. A 2015 National Academy of Science study recommended that NHTSA perform further research in this area. The agency has continued its research and will 

continue doing so. 

Question 8. Delayed Rulemakings: During yesterday’s hearing I inquired as to the 

status of several critical safety rulemakings mandated by Congress that are long 

overdue that would make the Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH) 

system for child restraint systems (CRS) easier to use, improve the performance of 

CRSs in crashes, require e-mail notification to consumers of a safety recall and mandate rear seat belt reminders in vehicles. I was pleased to hear that NTHSA is 

working diligently to complete these rulemakings and the agency has accelerated its 

work in this area. 

However, NHTSA has failed to provide target dates to complete the rulemakings 

that will improve the ease of use of the LATCH system and require e-mail notifications of safety defects to consumers. 

Can you provide a date when the agency anticipates completing each of these 

rulemakings? 

Answer. 

• LATCH: NHTSA initiated a rulemaking in February 2012 to improve on the 

usability of child restraint anchorage systems. An NPRM was issued by the 

agency on January 23, 2015, to address the provision in Section 31502 of MAP– 

21 to improve the ease-of-use of child restraint anchorage systems in all rear 

seating positions. The agency is currently evaluating comments to determine 

next steps. 

• Notification of Vehicle Safety Recalls Via Electronic Means: NHTSA initiated a 

rulemaking in October 2012 to address the provision in Section 24104 of the 

FAST Act to allow electronic notification methods for vehicle recalls. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was issued by the agency on January 25, 

2016, and was followed with the publication of an NPRM on September 1, 2016. 

The agency is currently evaluating comments to determine next steps. 

Question 9. NHTSA has indicated that it anticipates issuing a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in October of 2018 for the proposed regulation requiring rear seat belt 

reminders. Will the agency meet this deadline? 

Answer. The agency is currently drafting the NPRM and through the regulatory 

process and plans to publish the notice in October 2018. 

Question 10. NHTSA has indicated that it will publish a Final Rule on side impact requirements for CRSs in October 2018. Will the agency meet this deadline? 

Answer. The agency is currently drafting the final rule and through the regulatory process, plans to publish the rule in October 2018. 

Question 11. Drunk Driving: Distracted driving and drugged driving have received 

a lot of public attention in recent years as traffic safety threats. Drunk driving fatalities, however, have increased in each of the past two years after years of decline. 

Meanwhile, drunk driving arrests have steadily declined in recent years. Do you 

share my concern about this increase in drunk driving fatalities? What can and 

should NHTSA do to reverse these trends? 

Answer. NHTSA shares your concern about the increase in drunk driving deaths. 

Alcohol impairment remains one of the most serious traffic safety problems. In 2016, 

there were 10,497 deaths involving a driver above the legal blood alcohol level. 

Experience has shown that a comprehensive approach is the most effective means 

for addressing drunk driving. The agency is conducting research and developing programs to assist states in addressing risks ranging from underage drinking to binge 

drinkers and hard-core repeat offenders. Approaches to change behavior include 

strong laws, such as all-offender ignition interlock laws, and highly visible law enforcement. NHTSA provides training for police officers and prosecutors to strengthen arrest and courtroom procedures and education for judges regarding sentencing 

alternatives. 

The agency provides technical assistance for states that are establishing DUI 

Courts to rehabilitate the most serious offenders and sponsors two national impaired driving media campaigns each year to deter motorists from making a bad decision about driving after drinking. 

NHTSA administers an Impaired Driving Grant Program to provide resources for 

state programs and is working with the automotive industry on innovative techVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:39 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57803.TXT JACKIE
108 

nology that could be deployed in a voluntary market-driven manner to prevent drivers who are above the legal limit from driving their vehicle. 

NHTSA is also concerned that recent increases in drug use by drivers may exacerbate the alcohol problem. Studies show that mixing drugs and alcohol can amplify 

the effects of each and result in very serious impairment. In coming months, we will 

conduct a series of regional meetings to assess the problem and identify successful 

practices, and gather national experts to identify approaches for strengthening 

criminal justice processes and improving data systems. 

In this spring’s omnibus FY 2019 appropriations bill, Congress increased funding 

for the NHTSA highway safety program by $5 million to fund ‘‘grants, pilot program 

activities, and innovative solutions to reduce alcohol-impaired-driving fatalities and 

other causes of the recent increase in highway fatalities from impaired driving’’. 

Question 12. What is the status of NHTSA’s implementation of this funding provision? 

Answer. NHTSA plans to utilize these additional funds to strengthen state and 

community impaired driving programs in several important areas. A new initiative 

will be launched to reinforce the criminal justice system to improve the arrest and 

adjudication of impaired driving offenders. Tools and guidance will be developed to 

allow states to examine their overall system and allocate resources for best system 

performance. This initiative will assist states in maintaining a balance between investments such as law enforcement training, prosecution resources, and chemical 

testing capacity. A similar effort will focus on data system development to assist 

states in collecting, analyzing and utilizing consistent data on intoxication levels 

and other critical measures. State demonstration projects will be launched to test 

the effectiveness of these new tools and guidelines. Plans also include support for 

a new media campaign addressing the risks of driving while impaired by marijuana. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

HEIDI KING

Question 1. Underguards and sideguards: What actions will you take as administrator to mandate the installation of devices known as truck underguards and 

sideguards? 

Answer. NHTSA is currently evaluating the recent side underride research report 

including available crash data and information to determine the appropriate next 

steps. NHTSA recently released the results of the study, which can be found here. 

Question 2. Speed limiters: What actions will you take as administrator to mandate the installation of devices known as ‘‘speed governors’’ or ‘‘speed limiters’’ in 

heavy trucks? 

Answer. NHTSA received more than 2,000 public comments from its September 

2016 proposed rulemaking to require a speed limiting device on heavy vehicles. The 

agency continues to evaluate these comments, available research, and determine 

next steps. 

Question 3. Keyless Ignition Systems: Why isn’t NHTSA able to keep accurate 

tabs on deaths and injuries linked to keyless ignition systems? 

Answer. Verification of the death or injury to the keyless system requires detailed 

information. NHTSA’s ‘‘Not in Traffic Surveillance’’ (NiTS) system provides estimates on deaths that occur in or around vehicles that are not on public roadways. 

The system uses state and other data sources to make estimates of deaths not on 

roadways. This publication describes how the system operates: https:// 

crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811813. 

Question 4. What additional tools do you need to properly keep track of these dangers, or any other vehicle-related but non-crash incidents? 

Answer. NHTSA uses the tools it has (consumer complaints) and NiTS information (e.g., child heat stroke) to create programs for public awareness and campaigns 

to address specific issues found in the data. NHTSA is exploring other on-line 

sources of data (e.g., social media and forums) to understand the value of these new 

sources of data. 

Question 5. Are you committed to directing NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation to launching a probe into the 28 deaths and 45 injuries referenced in the New 

York Times article, and issuing necessary recalls? 

Answer. ODI uses a risk-based approach to determine whether an investigation 

should be opened. The approach requires validated sources of data on specific technology or systems alleging a defect that affects vehicle safety. ODI has been tracking keyless ignition issues and will act accordingly as the data is analyzed. 

109 

1https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/H–17–037–043.pdf 

Question 6. Please describe in detail how you will raise public awareness regarding the dangers of keyless ignition systems. 

Answer. NHTSA is working to promote safety through sharing safety tips and 

best practices for consumers regarding keyless ignition systems. To educate the public, NHTSA produced educational videos to raise awareness and continues to inform 

consumers about the safety of keyless ignition systems. Please see additional details 

related to NHTSA’s public campaign at https://www.nhtsa.gov/driver-assistancetechnologies/keyless-ignition-systems. 

Question 7. Please provide detailed information regarding any recalls linked to 

keyless ignition systems. 

Answer. The Office of Vehicle Safety and Compliance (OVSC) has one recall involving keyless ignitions in 23,000 vehicles (2013 Ford Focus/C-Max 13V–475). The 

recall involved: 

a. A non-compliance with FMVSS 114, S5.1.3 which requires an audible warning 

to the vehicle operator whenever the key is in the starting system and the door 

located closest to the driver’s designated seating position is opened. 

b. During OVSC testing of this vehicle, the keyless code was electronically in the 

ignition, however, there was no audible chime when the vehicle was operational and the driver’s door was opened. 

c. Following subsequent discussions and testing, Ford submitted its recall notice 

to NHTSA (Recall #13V–475) on September 30, 2015. 

Question 8. Autonomous Vehicles and NTSB Recommendations: Following the 

fatal collision between a Tesla vehicle operating in ‘‘Autopilot,’’ and a semitrailer 

near Williston, Florida on May 7, 2016, NTSB investigated the incident and issued 

four new safety recommendations to NHTSA 1: 

• H–17–037: Define the data parameters needed to understand the automated vehicle control systems involved in a crash. The parameters must reflect the vehicle’s control status and the frequency and duration of control actions to adequately characterize driver and vehicle performance before and during a crash. 

• H–17–038: Develop a method to verify that manufacturers of vehicles equipped 

with Level 2 vehicle automation systems incorporate system safeguards that 

limit the use of automated vehicle control systems to those conditions for which 

they were designed. 

• H–17–039: Use the data parameters defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation in response to Safety Recommendation H–17–37 as a benchmark for 

new vehicles equipped with automated vehicle control systems so that they capture data that reflect the vehicle’s control status and the frequency and duration of control actions needed to adequately characterize driver and vehicle performance before and during a crash; the captured data should be readily available to, at a minimum, National Transportation Safety Board investigators and 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulators. 

• H–17–040: Define a standard format for reporting automated vehicle control 

systems data, and require manufacturers of vehicles equipped with automated 

vehicle control systems to report incidents, crashes, and vehicle miles operated 

with such systems enabled. 

NTSB also reiterated two safety recommendations for NHTSA: 

• H–13–030: Develop minimum performance standard for connected vehicle technology for all highway vehicles. 

• H–13–031: Once minimum performance standards for connected vehicle technology are developed, require this technology to be installed on all newly manufactured highway vehicles. 

As NTSB communicated to you: ‘‘The NTSB is vitally interested in these recommendations because they are designed to prevent accidents and save lives.’’ 

You filed responses to NTSB for all six of these recommendations on February 7, 

2018. Do you have any updates on any of them? 

Answer. NHTSA appreciates the question and welcomes the opportunity to provide updates on these important NTSB safety recommendations: 

H–17–37—Define the data parameters needed to understand the automated vehicle control systems involved in a crash. The parameters must reflect the vehicle’s 

110 

control status and the frequency and duration of control actions to adequately characterize driver and vehicle performance before and during a crash. 

• NHTSA sent a follow-up letter to SAE International on February 28, 2018, acknowledging the work underway to establish an industry uniform data elements 

standard for crash reconstruction purposes. NHTSA staff have been participating in this activity. Discussions have involved data elements, trigger events, 

and similar issues. 

• In NHTSA’s follow-up letter, the agency emphasized that with testing and deployment growing, their efforts need to be expedited. This work will also help 

support public acceptance efforts. 

• NHTSA is also finalizing the congressional report requirement in the Fixing 

America’s Surface Transportation Act. 

H–2017–38—Develop a method to verify that manufacturers of vehicles equipped 

with Level 2 vehicle automation systems incorporate system safeguards that limit 

the use of automated vehicle control systems to those conditions for which they were 

designed. 

• NHTSA continues to actively monitor the development and deployment of lower 

level automation systems. If the agency suspects an unreasonable safety risk 

(safety-related defect) in the design or performance of a system, I commit to 

fully exercising NHTSA’s enforcement authority as appropriate. The agency has 

continually emphasized that public education and training on system functions, 

capabilities, and limitations to avoid safety risks from abuse and misuse of the 

spectrum of automation systems is a responsibility held by all. NHTSA is also 

conducting research observing how drivers engage with production Level 2 systems on short and long drives. Data collection and analyses have been completed, and the agency will make findings available on its website 

(www.nhtsa.gov), expected by year-end. NHTSA has retooled its website to help 

with the public’s understanding of new vehicle technologies and is working collaboratively with other organizations on this issue. 

H–17–39—Use the data parameters defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation in response to Safety Recommendation H–17–37 as a benchmark for new vehicles equipped with automated vehicle control systems so that they capture data 

that reflect the vehicle’s control status and the frequency and duration of control 

actions needed to adequately characterize driver and vehicle performance before and 

during a crash; the captured data should be readily available to, at a minimum, National Transportation Safety Board investigators and National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration regulators. 

• See response to H–2017–37, which similarly applies for this recommendation. 

Additionally, NHTSA continues to direct manufacturers and other entities to 

participate in the agency’s Early Warning Reporting program to assist in identifying safety issues associated with ADSs. 

H–17–40—Define a standard format for reporting automated vehicle control systems data, and require manufacturers of vehicles equipped with automated vehicle 

control systems to report incidents, crashes, and vehicle miles operated with such 

systems enabled. 

• NHTSA’s update for this recommendation is consistent with H–17–37. SAE 

International’s research to define the data parameters of EDRs specific to automated technologies is underway, and the Agency is considering the research 

needed to develop a standard format for reporting such data. 

H–13–30—Develop minimum performance standards for connected vehicle technology for all highway vehicles. 

• See response for H–13–31, which similarly applies to this recommendation. 

H–13–31—Once minimum performance standards for connected vehicle technology are developed, require this technology to be installed on all newly manufactured highway vehicles. 

• A final NHTSA decision on the proposed rulemaking concerning a ‘‘vehicle-tovehicle (V2V) communications’’ mandate is still pending. The agency, working 

with its counterparts at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) believes additional research is necessary on interference 

testing. We are currently planning next steps and will routinely update you on 

the status of our efforts. 

111 

2https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/Recommenda 

tion.aspx?Rec=H-17-038 3https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/Recommenda 

tion.aspx?Rec=H-17-038 

Question 9. In your response 2 on H–17–038 to NTSB, filed this past February, 

you wrote that NHTSA has ‘‘no current plans’’ to verify manufacturers of Level 2 

vehicles incorporate system safeguards that limit the use of automated vehicle control systems to those conditions for which they were designed. Instead, you pointed 

to voluntary guidance NHTSA published last fall for highly automated vehicles, 

which is not even intended for SAE Level 2 vehicles. You requested that this be considered a ‘‘Closed-Acceptable Response.’’ Do you really think a voluntary and unenforceable guidance, which is not even required of SAE Level 2 vehicles, is an adequate response to NTSB’s recommendation? 

Answer. I understand and appreciate your concern. In addition to the Voluntary 

Guidance directed at the higher levels of automation, the agency’s enforcement authority under the Vehicle Safety Act provides the ability to take decisive action if 

an unreasonable risk to safety emerges from any level of automation. 

Question 10. Under your tenure as Deputy Administrator, you made the industry 

guidance for AVs even more voluntary and even less specific. Given your response 

to H–17–037 (‘‘The guidance may be applied in part to any level of automation.’’) 

and H–17–038, would you commit to making sure any future editions of this guidance specifically call on SAE Level 2 vehicles to submit Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments? 

Answer. The changes to develop the Automated Driving System 2.0: A Vision for 

Safety guidance were in direct response to public input and comments. NHTSA continues to monitor and be engaged in the development and deployment of lower level 

automation systems. If the Agency suspects an unreasonable safety risk (safety-related defect) in the design or performance of a system, I commit to fully exercising 

NHTSA’s enforcement authority as appropriate. 

Question 11. In your response to NTSB on H–17–038 dated February 7, 2018, you 

wrote, ‘‘If NHTSA identifies a safety-related defect trend in the design or performance of a system, or identifies through its research or otherwise, any incidents in 

which a system did not perform as designed (including Levels LO through LS), it 

would exercise its authority as appropriate.’’ 3 There have now been several crashes 

linked to vehicles operating in autonomous mode in recent months, including two 

separate Tesla vehicles—one in California and another in Utah—that have crashed 

into stopped firetrucks. What safety-related defect trends have you found to date? 

Do you have sufficient staff and resources to investigate and follow-up on possible 

defects? 

Answer. Given the expertise available through SAE International, NHTSA is 

working closely with this voluntary standards organization to develop the appropriate data to collect for incidents involving Automated Driving Systems as well as 

what trigger events are appropriate to enable that collection. NHTSA sent a followup letter to SAE International on February 28, 2018, acknowledging the work underway to establish an industry uniform data elements standard for crash reconstruction purposes. 

In addition, NHTSA has launched Special Crash Investigations which are underway. The findings of these Special Crash Investigations will be reported and posted 

on NHTSA’s website when the each of the investigations are completed. 

Question 12. NTSB’s report on the fatal May 2016 Tesla crash said, ‘‘Based on 

data from police-reported crashes, 70 percent of crashes involving trucks occurred 

in scenarios that could potentially be addressed by V2V systems . . . The NTSB 

concludes that connected vehicle technology will be most effective when all vehicles 

traveling on our roadways are equipped with the technology, and that is particularly 

important with respect to large, heavy trucks that pose the highest risk of injury 

to occupants of other vehicles.’’ Do you agree that V2V communications are critical 

for the safe deployment of autonomous vehicles? When do you intend to finalize the 

V2V rule first proposed in January 12, 2017? Will you ensure heavy-duty vehicles 

will also be a part of any rulemaking on V2V? 

Answer. Technology and innovation are key to moving forward with automation 

in motor vehicles and NHTSA is committed to encouraging that innovation without 

hindrance of design limitations. We have not made any final decision on the proposed rule concerning a V2V mandate. While DOT withdrew or revised 13 rules in 

2017, V2V was not one of them, and it remains on DOT’s significant rulemaking 

report. DOT hopes to use the dedicated spectrum for transportation lifesaving technologies. See https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/v2v-statement. 

112 

Question 13. Autonomous Vehicles: In your view, do the self-safety assessment reports published by Waymo and General Motors provide NHTSA with enough detailed information about each company’s products to determine whether these automated vehicles are safe and ready for use on public roads? If YES, what specific 

information in these reports did NHTSA rely on to evaluate the safety of these vehicles? If NO, what other avenues does NHTSA anticipate using to determine that 

these vehicles are safe and ready for use on public roads? 

Answer. The Voluntary Safety Self Assessments are a way for companies to explain to the public—not NHTSA—how they are addressing safety. NHTSA is involved in routine conversations with these and other companies and has tools at its 

disposal to employ if necessary to collect additional information. 

Question 14. Do you believe the voluntary guidelines issued by DOT provide 

NHTSA with the tools it needs to determine whether AVs and AV technology can 

be safely deployed on public roads? 

Answer. NHTSA continues to monitor the development and deployment of Automated Driving Systems. If the agency suspects an unreasonable safety risk (safetyrelated defect) in the design or performance of a system, I commit to fully exercising 

NHTSA’s enforcement authority as appropriate. 

Question 16. Are you concerned about the potential for driver distraction and disengagement that occurs with level 2 and level 3 AVs as evidence by the Tesla crash 

that occurred in Florida and the Uber fatality involving autonomous vehicles? If so, 

what steps is NHTSA taking to ensure these systems are safe? 

Answer. NHTSA and the Department released Automated Driving Systems 2.0: 

A Vision for Safety in September 2017 which included 12 safety elements—developed by industry safety experts and through stakeholder feedback as paramount in 

the safe design and implementation of automated systems in our vehicles—for entities to consider in designing Automated Driving Systems. In addition to incorporating safety into the design of the vehicle, ADS 2.0 encourages consumer education for ADS to educate consumers on the proper use and their responsibility in 

the driving task. NHTSA is engaged in the testing of current production systems 

as well as those under development, participates in demonstrations of technologies 

and exchanges with ADS entities regarding use and functionality, and provides outreach to consumers through the NCAP program and the Automation website regarding currently available systems. It is important to note that the highest automation 

level publicly available at this time are Level 2 systems. In addition to proactive 

efforts towards safety of systems, if the Agency suspects an inherent safety risk 

(safety-related defect) in the design or performance of a system, we are commit to 

fully exercising NHTSA’s enforcement authority as appropriate. 

Question 17. Funding for NHTSA: The Administration’s budget request for DOT includes a $26 million reduction in funding for NHTSA’s vehicle safety program. Included in this cut is an over 50 percent reduction in funding for the agency’s enforcement budget which supports NHTSA’s efforts to identify safety recalls and ensure new vehicles, such as new driverless cars, meet Federal safety standards. In 

addition, the agency’s rulemaking budget will be cut by nearly $2 million. 

Do you think it is appropriate to cut NHTSA’s enforcement budget at a time when 

Americans are facing millions of safety recalls and automakers are gearing up to 

commercialize autonomous vehicles? 

Answer. The President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 budget request was submitted to 

Congress prior to Congress passing appropriations for the remainder of FY 2018. 

The FY 2019 President’s budget requests $17 million for the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Enforcement activities. I believe the request provides the resources needed to address new challenges while maintaining 

efforts that advance NHTSA’s core safety mission. The budget will allow NHTSA 

to ensure industry compliance with motor vehicle safety standards, and it will enable the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) to continue to expeditiously identifying 

and investigating safety defects in motor vehicles, motor vehicle equipment, child 

seats, and tires. 

Question 18. Do you think it is appropriate to cut NHTSA’s rulemaking budget 

at a time when NHTSA is in breach of many mandated deadlines set by Congress 

in MAP–21 and the FAST Act? 

Answer. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 President’s Budget requests $21.5 million for 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Office of Rulemaking. This Office is responsible for administering the Safety Standard Support 

Program, New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), and the Fuel Economy Program. 

The budget request does not propose to reduce funding for the Safety Standards 

Support program, which is responsible for developing regulations mandated by 

MAP–21 and the FAST Act. 

113 

Question 19. Takata Airbag Recall: What additional consumer remedies can automakers provide their customers, to make it easier for them to get their vehicle repaired? 

Answer. NHTSA and the Independent Monitor have encouraged automakers to 

consider and address owner inconvenience as an important part of motivating vehicle owners to have the Takata repair performed. There are many steps automakers 

can and are taking to make it easier for consumers to have their vehicles repaired. 

These include providing simple methods to schedule a repair appointment; free towing to the dealership; ‘‘front of the line,’’ overnight, weekend, and other extended 

hours of service; loaner or rental vehicles; free taxi or car service rides; and mobile 

repair services at a location other than a dealership. It is also important that automakers prominently feature those services that they provide to reduce inconvenience in their outreach. The Independent Monitor’s research found that many vehicle owners were unaware of the services provided, and that knowing of the services 

would have made it more likely for an owner to have the repair performed sooner. 

Additional information regarding these issues is available in the Independent Monitor’s November 2017 report, which NHTSA has made available on its website at 

www.nhtsa.gov/takata. 

Question 20. During your confirmation hearing, Ranking Member Nelson asked 

you to commit to making public automakers’ plans to fix faulty airbags. In the exchange that followed, you expressed concern about releasing confidential business 

information. 

Please explain exactly what kind of information contained within an automaker’s 

plan to fix faulty airbags might be deemed confidential. Why can’t this information 

just be redacted? If you were to disagree with an automaker’s designation of certain 

information as CBI or trade secret, would you object? How? 

Answer. I commit to asking each automaker affected by the Takata recalls to provide a public plan regarding the specific steps it will take to improve its recall completion rates, which NHTSA will post on its website. I share your commitment to 

transparency and NHTSA has made efforts to provide extensive information on 

these recalls on its website at www.nhtsa.gov/takata. 

NHTSA’s regulation at 49 C.F.R. Part 512 defines confidential business information to include information that is not customarily released to the public by the person from whom the information was obtained, in addition to information that is likely to cause substantial competitive harm or that is a trade secret. When an automaker claims that information is confidential, NHTSA evaluates those claims according to the standards of our regulation. NHTSA’s Office of Chief Counsel handles 

determinations on claims of confidential treatment and I entrust that Office with 

evaluating whether such claims are appropriate or not. Until the agency decides on 

a claim of confidentiality, NHTSA is obligated to treat the information as confidential. If the agency disagrees with an automaker’s claim of confidentiality, it generally must follow an administrative process that involves a determination in writing and an opportunity for the automaker to petition for reconsideration. 

As for automakers’ plans to fix defective air bags, the types of information that 

automakers might claim as confidential could include information on vendors and 

suppliers that they use to perform certain tasks related to their recall outreach, 

pricing information, or other detailed information that an automaker would not customarily release to the public. An automaker that claims certain information it submits to the agency is confidential must submit a redacted copy of the submission, 

in addition to the complete, unredacted copy. 

Question 21. CAFE Standards: The recently leaked joint NHTSA-EPA draft proposal for fuel economy and vehicle emissions standards shows that both agencies intend to freeze the existing standards through MY 2025. The preferred approach outlined in the document proposes zero percent increases in standards from MY 2020– 

2025, which would increase oil consumption by hundreds of billions of gallons 

through 2050. Even less dramatic rollbacks in CAFE would increase U.S. dependence on oil. Do you support this proposal for zero or only slight progress through 

the next decade? 

Answer. The law requires NHTSA to undertake a de novo rulemaking to set 

CAFE standards for MYs 2022–2025. I intend to ensure that the agency follows the 

Administrative Procedure Act in that rulemaking process and base our proposal and 

final decision on the best information and analysis available. The precise contours 

of the proposal are still under deliberation. We look forward to issuing that proposal 

as soon as possible. 

Question 22. The leaked NPRM threatens state and local authority by saying 

‘‘states may not adopt or enforce tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions standards when 

such standards relate to fuel economy standards and are therefore preempted under 

114 

EPCA [the Energy Policy and Conservation Act], regardless of whether EPA granted 

any waivers under the Clean Air Act.’’ District courts have already upheld California’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles under the Clean 

Air Act. If this draft proposal moves forward, NHTSA will be illegally trying to preempt this state authority. Do you support this proposal to preempt state authority? 

Answer. The precise contours of the proposal are still under deliberation, and we 

look forward to issuing that proposal as soon as possible. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. EDWARD MARKEY TO

HEIDI KING

Question 1. Energy Conservation and Oil Use: As the Administrator for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, you would be responsible for establishing and enforcing the fuel economy standards for our Nation’s vehicles. The 1975 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which first enacted the fuel economy standards, specifies that in deciding the maximum feasible average fuel economy, your 

agency needs to balance four considerations, one of which is ‘‘the need of the United 

States to conserve energy.’’ We still import nearly 3.5 million barrels of oil every 

day. We import more than 2.5 million from OPEC nations like Saudi Arabia, Iraq 

and Nigeria. 

a. Deputy Administrator King, is the need to conserve energy still a key issue for 

the United States? 

b. Will you commit that any fuel economy plan officially put forth by NHTSA 

prioritizes our national need to conserve energy—to reduce our consumption of 

oil by setting the maximum feasible standards as required by the law, yes or 

no? 

c. Will you commit that any such plan put forward by NHTSA will not disregard 

this statutorily-required priority as a consideration? 

Answer. The overarching purpose of EPCA is energy conservation, and NHTSA 

will absolutely consider the need of the U.S. to conserve energy as part of its forthcoming proposal, along with the other statutory factors we consider in determining 

maximum feasible CAFE standards. 

Question 2. The standards on the books now will reduce our oil consumption by 

2.5 million barrels per day by 2030. But reports indicate that the Trump Administration proposal aims to freeze the standards at the 2020 level. Regardless of these 

reports or the current status of the proposal, a plateau of standards at the 2020 

level would have serious consequences for American oil use, greenhouse gas emissions, and costs to consumers. 

d. Deputy Administrator King, would freezing the standards at the 2020 level— 

a sales-weighted average of around 37 mpg—lead to more or less oil consumption than if we kept the standards at their current trajectory? 

e. Would freezing standards at the 2020 level mean consumers will spend more 

or less money to purchase gasoline than if we kept the current fuel economy 

emissions standards in place? 

f. In your opinion, would freezing standards at the 2020 level be consistent with 

the statutory mandate to develop ‘‘maximum feasible’’ standards, especially considering the innovative nature of American manufacturing? 

g. What is your definition of ‘‘maximum feasible,’’ as set out in the statute? 

Answer. NHTSA and EPA are working towards a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

that will include an analysis of the impact of proposed options. The Regulatory Impact Analysis accompanying the proposed rule will address changes in oil consumption, changes in fuel consumption, and other impacts of each of the options considered. The analysis will be available for public comment in order to ensure that the 

best possible information is used to support the final rulemaking. 

EPCA requires that the standards be set at a level that is maximum feasible, 

specifying specific factors that must be considered. NHTSA will seek public comment in the upcoming proposal as the agencies prepare to set standards that are 

maximum feasible consistent with the statute, that consider the four factors laid out 

in the statute, and that are based on an evaluation and weighing of the best available information. 

Question 3. Auto manufacturers have expressed concern over the fuel economy 

standards and their cost to the industry. However, we have heard these concerns 

before. In 2007, Susan Cischke of Ford Motor Company said, ‘‘We don’t even know 

115 

how to reach [35 miles per gallon by 2020], not in a viable way. [It] would break 

the industry.’’ 

h. Are there vehicles that are currently on the market that achieve the goal of 

35 mpg? 

i. Since the fuel economy standards were established in 2012, have auto manufacturers had any years of record vehicle sales? If so, how many and when? 

j. Since the fuel economy standards were established in 2012, how many jobs 

have been added in the auto industry? 

Answer. Yes, there are vehicles currently on the market with a mpg of higher 

than 35 mpg. Vehicle sales are influenced by numerous factors, including broad economic conditions such as employment and income levels, as well as new approaches 

to financing, and low fuel prices, as well as other factors. 

Question 4. California Waiver Preemption: Massachusetts is one of the 12 states 

that have adopted California’s strong vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards, 

which it depends upon to protect the climate and clean air. California has been 

issued a waiver under the Clean Air Act that allows it to keep its own vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards. More than 100 waivers for vehicles emissions have 

been issued to California and none have ever been revoked. The draft proposal purportedly asserts that, ‘‘States may not adopt or enforce tailpipe greenhouse gas 

emissions standards when such standards relate to fuel economy standards and are 

therefore preempted under EPCA [the Energy Policy and Conservation Act], regardless of whether EPA granted any waivers under the Clean Air Act (CAA).’’ 

k. Deputy Administrator King, do you think that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act preempts the California waiver for vehicle greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, yes or no? 

l. Are you aware that the argument that EPCA preempts CAA waivers was rejected in multiple court decisions in 2007? 

m. Does the EPA or NHTSA have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions? 

Answer. EPCA’s preemption provision applies to state standards related to fuel 

economy. 

NHTSA believes that the 2007 court decisions you reference applied to EPCA preemption of state standards that had been granted a waiver under the CAA. 

EPA’s Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gas Emissions trigger an obligation 

for EPA to set standards for GHG emissions from motor vehicles. NHTSA’s authority to set fuel economy standards effectively results in NHTSA also regulating carbon dioxide emissions from those vehicles, because fuel economy standards necessarily affect carbon dioxide emissions due to the chemical nature of combustion. 

For this reason, NHTSA and EPA are coordinating closely in developing a joint rulemaking related to automotive fuel economy and emissions. 

Question 5. Climate Change: A report released by the Trump administration last 

November found that it is extremely likely that human activity, particularly the 

emissions of greenhouse gases, is the dominant cause of observed warming since the 

mid-20th century. The production of this report was overseen by 13 different agencies, including the Department of Transportation. 

n. While I acknowledge that you are not a climate scientist by training, as you 

said to Sen. Hassan during your nomination hearing, do you agree with the 

findings of this report that the consensus of scientific research shows humans 

are the dominant cause of climate change, yes or no? 

o. Do you agree that climate change contributes to the increasing severity of extreme weather events, including droughts and floods, yes or no? 

Answer. I will, if confirmed, continue to execute the statutory requirements of the 

agency in a science-and data-driven manner. As an automotive and traffic safety 

regulator, you have my commitment to be thoughtful and transparent in all agency 

actions. Where it is necessary for us to consider climate impacts, I will do so, relying 

on the expert engineers, attorneys, scientists and others. Thank you for highlighting 

the report above. In 2009, the EPA published an endangerment finding related to 

CO2 and I have no scientific information suggesting that I should dispute that action. 

Question 6. Civil Penalties for Noncompliance: On March 27, 2018, NHTSA issued 

a notice of proposed rulemaking that aimed to freeze the penalty rate for manufacturers that fail to meet the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards at 

$5.50, preventing them from rising to $14 for Model Year 2019 vehicles as schedVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:39 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57803.TXT JACKIE
116 

uled. Manufacturers have to pay this fine for every tenth of a mile per gallon by 

which the standards are missed. 

p. How did NHTSA make the determination to propose freezing the monetary 

civil penalties? 

q. What was your personal involvement in NHTSA’s determination to propose 

freezing the penalties? 

Answer. NHTSA issued its proposal to retain the $5.50 rate for CAFE civil penalties based on an evaluation of the available information following its request for 

comments on this issue in July 2017, which was the first time the agency sought 

public comment on the issue. Part of this consideration was based on an evaluation 

of the relevant statutes and a tentative legal determination that the CAFE penalty 

rate is not a ‘‘civil monetary penalty’’ subject to inflationary adjustment under the 

Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. NHTSA 

has not yet made a final determination on the CAFE penalty rate, which is currently under consideration. 

My personal involvement was to approve the tentative determination and the 

issuance of the agency’s proposal to obtain relevant views and information from the 

public. I signed the notice of proposed rulemaking as NHTSA’s Deputy Administrator. 

Question 7. Early Warning Reporting Systems: Automobile defects must first be 

identified before they can be remediated. That’s why, in 2000, I worked with Congressman Henry Waxman and my other colleagues to create the Early Warning Reporting—EWR—System, which requires NHTSA to publish information in which a 

potential defect could have caused a fatality or serious injury. With this information, 

independent automobile safety experts, and the public could identify and report potential defects. And while EWR has helped save lives, we should still make several 

important improvements to ensure the EWR is performing its life saving function, 

like updating NHTSA’s online database and requiring equipment manufacturers to 

automatically submit the accident report or other documents to NHTSA. 

a. Deputy Administrator King, will you work with us on making these much 

needed improvements to the EWR System? 

Answer. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) continues to analyze the 

large volumes of EWR information that comes from about 1000 companies required 

to file data. These analyses identify potential defect trends and issues that can be 

used in recently developed risk-based processes to open investigations. ODI has 

been meeting with manufacturers to ensure they are meeting their report requirements and determining possible improvements to EWR data to be responsive to new 

technology and methods of analysis. These discussions are ongoing. NHTSA is enhancing and modernizing ODI’s data repository and analysis system (Artemis) to include more automated uploading of information by manufacturers, the ability to link 

and analyze more data as well as conduct pre-investigative and investigative activities more efficiently and effectively. 

Question 8. Seatback Safety: The safest way to transport children is in the backseat of a car, unless the front seats are so weak that they collapse during a rear 

end collision, endangering occupants in the second row. Regrettably, the Center for 

Auto Safety estimates the seat safety defect leads to the death of at least 50 children per year. Despite this, NHTSA has not updated its seat safety standards for 

50 years. 

a. Deputy Administrator King, will you commit to updating seat safety standards 

to prevent such tragedies from reoccurring? 

Answer. NHTSA is evaluating all options to address seatback safety for rear end 

collisions. The agency is also working to improve side and frontal impact protection 

for child restraint systems through two different statutorily required rulemakings 

in 2018. 

Question 9. Rulemaking Statutory Deadlines: For decades, Congress has worked 

on a bipartisan basis to enact laws to improve automobile safety and reduce vehiclerelated fatalities. Unfortunately, over the past few years, NHTSA has missed several key statutory deadlines for the development of these rules. These acts of Congress cannot have their life-saving impact if they are not actually implemented. 

a. If confirmed, will you commit to clearing the backlog of statutorily required yet 

incomplete rulemakings within 2 years? 

b. Will you commit to complete all future statutorily required rulemakings within 

their deadlines? 

117 

Answer. Safety is the U.S. Department of Transportation’s top priority. I am committed to safety and the agency will continue its focus to complete of all statutorily 

required rulemakings through the regulatory process. 

Question 10. Automotive Recyclers (Takata): While the deaths attributable to the 

Takata defect continue to rise, millions of defective and highly volatile Takata air 

bags remain on our Nation’s roads, putting the driving public in danger. As of the 

third quarter of 2017, less than half of the 50 million defective Takata air bags currently under recall have been repaired. And an additional 19 to 24 million additional air bags are scheduled to be added to the recall as they reach a state of instability. That is unacceptable. Simply put—we have far too many Takata airbags on 

the roads, years after national recalls began. For completion rates to improve, automobile manufactures should provide important information—including VINs, part 

names, part descriptions, part numbers, serial numbers, and VIN completion status—to automotive recyclers and repair shops. 

a. If confirmed, will you work to ensure such information is available? 

Answer. Yes, if confirmed I will continue to work to facilitate information sharing 

and partnerships to identify and remove defective Takata air bags from the stream 

of commerce, and to reach affected vehicle owners. The automotive recycling industry and independent repair facilities are critical players in making the Takata recalls a success. NHTSA and the Independent Monitor have encouraged the affected 

automakers to work with these groups as part of their recall strategies, as described 

in greater detail in the Independent Monitor’s November 2017 report, which is 

available on NHTSA’s website at www.nhtsa.gov/takata. 

Specifically, NHTSA has been working with the automakers involved in the 

Takata recalls and the automotive recycling industry to facilitate information sharing to identify recalled parts and ensure they are not sold in violation of law. In 

April 2016, the Independent Monitor recommended that automakers employ salvage 

recovery services to retrieve scrapped or salvaged inflators. This recommendation included providing identifying information, including VINs, to these vendors. The 

Independent Monitor and NHTSA have continued to assist automakers in understanding the importance of addressing salvage parts as a part of their recall strategy. Over time an increasing number of automakers have engaged with salvage recovery service to collect defective inflators. 

NHTSA has also encouraged automakers to work with independent repair facilities on the Takata recalls. The Independent Monitor’s April 2016 recommendations 

encouraged automakers to engage with third parties, including independent repair 

facilities to conduct outreach. Since many vehicle owners bring their vehicles to 

independent repair facilities for service, they are an effective touchpoint to reach 

owners with an open Takata recall. This has proven to be a success in helping to 

increase recall completion rates, as described in the Independent Monitor’s report. 

NHTSA and the Independent Monitor have continued to engage with the automakers on this topic, including addressing the issue at multiple automaker summits. 

As of March 30, 2018, 22.9 million airbags have been replaced. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

HEIDI KING

Question 1. Where do you think we stand in the fight on drunk driving? Do you 

have a plan in place to address the increase in fatalities? 

Answer. NHTSA has made significant progress in reducing drunk driving deaths, 

but with 10,497 deaths in 2016 involving a driver above the legal blood alcohol level, 

this remains one of the most serious traffic safety problems and much work still 

needs to be done. 

Experience has shown that a comprehensive approach is the most effective means 

for addressing drunk driving. The agency is conducting research and developing programs to assist states in addressing risks ranging from underage drinking to binge 

drinkers and hard-core repeat offenders. Approaches to change behavior include 

strong laws, such as all-offender ignition interlock laws, and highly visible law enforcement. NHTSA provides training for police officers and prosecutors to strengthen arrest and courtroom procedures and education for judges regarding sentencing 

alternatives. 

The agency provides technical assistance for states that are establishing DUI 

Courts to rehabilitate the most serious offenders and sponsors two national impaired driving media campaigns each year to deter motorists from making a bad decision to drive after drinking. 

118 

NHTSA administers an Impaired Driving Grant Program to provide resources for 

state programs and is working with the automotive industry on innovative technology that could be deployed in a voluntary market-driven manner to prevent drivers who are above the legal limit from driving their vehicle. 

NHTSA is also launching an initiative to address the emerging problem of drugimpaired driving. Studies show that drug use can seriously affect driving, especially 

when used in combination with alcohol. In coming months, we will conduct a series 

of regional meetings to assess the problem and identify successful practices, and 

gather national experts to identify approaches for strengthening criminal justice 

processes and improving data systems. 

Question 2. My state of New Mexico is a leader when it comes to implementing 

a robust ignition interlock program. What needs to be done to get more states to 

implement forward thinking programs like we do in New Mexico? 

Answer. New Mexico has long been a leader in drunk driving programs and was 

the first state to enact an ignition interlock law that covers all offenders. More than 

25 others have since followed the state’s example. NHTSA is pursuing several approaches to encourage more states to expand their use of ignition interlocks for convicted drunk driving offenders. Incentive programs have shown success in encouraging states to consider effective new strategies, and the agency administers the 

Congressionally-authorized Ignition Interlock Incentive Grant Program that rewards 

states that enact an all-offender interlock law meeting certain basic criteria. NHTSA 

also provides training and technical assistance for states to implement such laws 

and realize their full effectiveness. 

Question 3. I would like to talk with you about the advanced alcohol detection system research project known as DADSS. This project was conceived in my state at 

a MADD conference in 2006 and my legislation, the ROADS SAFE Act, authorized 

and funded it. I was pleased to have broad support for my bill, including from elements of the alcohol industry. I was also proud to participate in an event about the 

progress of the program nearly three years ago at DOT headquarters. There was 

a great deal of enthusiasm and hope that day about the possibility of having a system available in vehicles that could save up to 7000 lives a year. My concern now 

is that after about a decade of work, we do not seem to be seeing as much progress 

as many of the program supporters anticipated. I hope that you have taken a detailed look at the program and that you will make its success one of your priorities. 

Have you visited the DADSS facilities? 

Answer. Unfortunately, I have not yet had the opportunity to visit one of the facilities. I hope to visit in the near future. 

Question 4. What can you tell us about the current status, particularly deployment of a robust field test program? 

Answer. There are two field trials underway. The first involves a total of forty 

vehicles, of which five have been currently built up. Data collection will start for 

this trial once any required Paperwork Reduction Act approval is obtained. On a 

related note, NHTSA already has one vehicle deployed in Virginia that is collecting 

data, and has four more planned for deployment in in mid-June. 

Question 5. Will you commit to working with me as we work on the reauthorization and funding of this program? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 6. Does the agency have sufficient resources to accelerate the program? 

Answer. Yes, the agency has already accelerated the program and is now investigating issues related to deployment. 

Question 7. In this regard, could we see more financial support from the auto industry to help accelerate development and deployment? I should note that the auto 

industry contributes substantially less in terms of actual dollars to the program 

than the original agreement which is down from the 50–50 split at the start of the 

program. 

Answer. While the split that you mentioned is down, the auto industry has been 

financially supporting other efforts related to the program, such as the IP issues associated with some of the technologies being developed. Similarly, the majority of 

the vehicles being used in the field operational trial are donated by the OEMs. 

Question 8. Autonomous Vehicles: Do the self-safety assessment reports published 

by Waymo and General Motors provide NHTSA with enough detailed information 

about each company’s products to determine whether these automated vehicles are 

safe and ready for use on public roads? 

Answer. The Voluntary Safety Self Assessments are a way for companies to explain to the public—not NHTSA—how they are addressing safety. NHTSA is inVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:39 Jan 02, 2025 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\57803.TXT JACKIE
119 

volved in routine conversations with these and other companies and has tools at its 

disposal to employ if necessary to collect additional information. 

Question 9. If yes, what specific information in these reports did NHTSA rely on 

to evaluate the safety of these vehicles? 

If not, what other avenues does NHTSA anticipate using to determine that these 

vehicles are safe and ready for use on public roads? 

Answer. NHTSA does not pre-certify or approve vehicles, it sets and enforces Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If there is an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle 

safety, we also pursue defect investigations. For Automated Driving Systems, 

NHTSA released final guidance in September 2017 to further support their safe 

testing and deployment. 

Question 10. I am concerned about the proposed cuts to the NHTSA budget and 

the increased demands on the agency. Do you believe that NHTSA is ready for the 

increased demands necessary for the safe deployment of autonomous vehicles on our 

Nation’s roads? 

Answer. Yes. NHTSA experienced significant increases in FY 17 and 18 that have 

greatly helped accelerate the work needed to continue supporting the safe testing 

and deployment of Automated Driving Systems. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH TO

HEIDI KING

Question 1. As you know, the Administration’s budget request for USDOT in- cludes a $26 million reduction in funding for NHTSA’s vehicle safety program that 

cuts in half the agency’s enforcement budget, including NHTSA’s efforts to identify 

safety recalls even though 680 million vehicles have been subject to a safety recall 

over the past 20 years. The President’s budget also cuts nearly $2 million from 

NHTSA’s rulemaking budget. Please explain why it makes sense to cut NHTSA’s 

rulemaking budget when the agency is behind schedule in issuing safety 

rulemakings directed by Congress that enhance safety for the traveling passengers? Answer. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 President’s Budget requests $21.5 million for 

NHTSA’s Office of Rulemaking. This Office is responsible for administering the 

Safety Standards Support Program, New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), and the 

Fuel Economy Program. The budget request does not propose to reduce funding for 

the Safety Standards Support program, which is responsible for developing regulations mandated by MAP–21 and the FAST Act. 

Question 2. Do you concur with the NTSB’s recommendation that NHTSA define 

the data needed to understand the performance of autonomous vehicle (AV) control 

systems involved in a crash and develop a standard format for the reporting of data 

generated by AVs? What actions has NHTSA considered in response to NTSB’s recommendations on AV vehicle data? 

Answer. As there are currently no Automated Driving Systems on the road for 

sale to the public, NHTSA is focusing its efforts towards work with SAE International to develop standards rather than initiating regulatory activities. The agency will continue collaborating with SAE to accelerate their work on data elements 

to help reconstruct the events surrounding a crash of a vehicle equipped with an 

Automated Driving System. 

Question 3. In MAP–21, Congress directed NHTSA to issue regulations requiring 

rear seat belt reminders in all new motor vehicles by October 2015, but the agency 

has yet to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Will NHTSA meet its 

most recent deadline for issuing a NPRM in October 2018? 

Answer. The agency is currently drafting the NPRM and through the regulatory 

process, plans to publish the notice in October 2018. 

Question 4. Also included in MAP–21, Congress directed NHTSA to issue a final 

rule to improve the ease of use of Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH) 

systems in rear seating positions by October 2015, but the agency has yet to meet 

this deadline. Please provide an update on the status of this rulemaking. Will 

NHTSA complete this rulemaking within the next 12 months? 

Answer. NHTSA initiated a rulemaking in February 2012 to improve on the 

usability of child restraint anchorage systems. An NPRM was issued by the agency 

on January 23, 2015, to address the provision in Section 31502 of MAP–21 to improve the ease-of-use of child restraint anchorage systems in all rear seating positions. The agency is currently evaluating comments to determine next steps. 

Question 5. In 2015, NHTSA granted a petition for rulemaking to require Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) on commercial motor vehicles above 10,000 

pounds, yet NHTSA has still not undertaken any regulatory actions. Please provide 

120 

an update on NHTSA’s work in this area. By what date will NHTSA issue a proposed rule? 

Answer. NHTSA continues its research and field operational tests for heavy vehicle AEB. The agency has been evaluating the technology to determine the appropriate test procedures, costs, and benefits. NHTSA researched early systems from 

2013–2016, and is currently studying next generation technology through a naturalistic study using a field operation test. NHTSA expects to complete the critical 

field operation testing in 12—18 months from now. This research and other information will help inform an agency decision on next steps. 

Question 6. In a recent op-ed, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt argued that fuel 

economy and greenhouse gas standards are pushing jobs out of the country. Do you 

agree? 

Answer. Numerous studies find that regulations can change the cost of production 

and can result in a shift in manufacturing employment. These potential shifts are 

discussed in many Regulatory Impact Analyses produced by the EPA and other Federal agencies as well as in academic studies. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO HEIDI KING

Question 1. NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program: One NHTSA program of interest is NCAP, the agency’s New Car Assessment Program that provides consumers 

with comparative information on vehicle safety performance and new safety features. 

Given the activity surrounding autonomous vehicles, with manufacturers, technology, and ridesharing entities all rushing towards fully autonomous vehicles (L5), 

how do you foresee NCAP evolving to keep pace with the introduction of new safety 

features? 

Answer. NHTSA plans to renew our dialogue with the public this year to further 

inform NHTSA and help shape NCAP’s future. The agency is confident that the results of this process will enable NHTSA to respond to the unprecedented technology 

advances in the market. 

Question 2. How will a modernized NCAP address crash avoidance and crashworthiness, and is there a role for increasing consumer education to ensure these 

safety improvements are captured? 

Answer. Although it is difficult to predict specific market direction, the agency is 

confident that its planned process for public engagement will inform and enable 

NHTSA’s action to leverage the best and appropriate safety information for crashworthiness and crash avoidance. NHTSA believes there’s a great opportunity and 

role for NCAP to continue its consumer education efforts on the safety of vehicles 

with advanced technologies. 

Question 3. If confirmed, can you give us complete confidence that you will sanction the timeline for the U.S. NCAP, such that as a nation strongly interested in 

safety, we don’t fall behind the EuroNCAP confirmed for 2020? 

Answer. Yes, I will endeavor to make U.S. NCAP the leading governmental safety 

assessment. 

Question 4. If confirmed as Administrator, do you plan to update U.S. NCAP and 

begin rule making? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 5. If so, what is the anticipated timeline for this process and implementation? 

Answer. NHTSA is working to launch a plan of action later this year. 

Question 6. As the Acting Administrator, what have you done to advance U.S. 

NCAP and further safety in U.S.? 

Answer. The agency has continued its testing and has communicated safety ratings information for more than 85 percent of new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. 

last year. In the Model Year 2018 vehicle fleet assessment, NHTSA added two crash 

avoidance technologies to NCAP: (1) crash imminent braking, and (2) dynamic brake 

support technologies. 

Question 7. Do you have any concerns that we are falling behind other nations? 

Answer. No. American companies are among the world leaders in introducing innovative safety technologies and developing new ones. 

Question 8. As a former economist, do you think there are potential U.S. trade 

implications for not adopting the U.S. NCAP by 2019? 

121 

Answer. No. American companies are among the world leaders in introducing innovative safety technologies and developing new ones. 

Question 9. What about 2020? 

Answer. NHTSA will continue to build upon the progress we make in 2019. Working to make U.S. NCAP a world leader on safety is a focus and priority of mine. 

Question 10. In one word, would you support NCAP implementation by 2020? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 11. Technology and the Necessary Guardrails: Obviously we’re in an innovation age where many technological developments are driving economic expansion and can help society in a variety of ways. 

I wanted to ask from your perspective, whether you agree with many of us on the 

Commerce Committee that there are needed guardrails within these technologies 

that will have to be put in place for various elements like higher levels of safety, 

cyber security, privacy, wouldn’t you agree? 

I ask because Nevada is at the forefront of these technologies, that’s why I’m 

working to continue to lead an Innovation State initiative. 

Answer. NHTSA is deeply committed to ensure the safe testing and deployment 

of motor vehicles equipped with automated driving systems. The agency will continue its public proceedings, including meetings, workshops, forums and comment 

periods to help set the appropriate pathway for automated driving systems in the 

United States. 

Question 12. As we’re looking at legislation in the Congress, do you believe these 

needed guardrails must be considered and addressed? 

Answer. Safety is the U.S. Department of Transportation’s top priority. It is important that we continue to listen to all stakeholders as this technology continues 

to develop. Based on the input we receive from our continued public outreach processes, NHTSA must continue to assure safety while also allowing for the deployment of innovative safety technologies. 

Question 13. What specifically is your, and NHTSA’s perspective on whether the 

current Senate AV Start bill requires sufficient transparency, disclosure, and oversight to enable the technology, and your agency, to carry each’s mission of improving 

traffic safety? 

Answer. NHTSA will continue its engagement with Congress to address technical 

issues related to any legislation, including AV START. I am strongly committed to 

ensuring that the agency and Congress maintain open communication regarding 

this and other legislation. 

Question 14. Smart Transportation Technology—Moving FIRST Act: An innovation that is exciting and being developed and broadened in Nevada is the idea of 

smart communities, where we can be developing and employing incredible technologies that help us safe lives, and improve the efficiency and quality of life of our 

residents. Smart communities is something I’m active on in the Senate, leading the 

bipartisan Moving FIRST Act, to provide a Federal partnership in efforts broader 

than just autonomous vehicles. 

Can you speak to what the administration is currently doing, and you will plan 

to do if confirmed, in this area of smart transportation technology? 

Answer. Smart communities involve a coordinated effort among all modes of 

transportation to focus on the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Incorporating interconnected technologies into our infrastructure and vehicles provides 

opportunities to reduce congestion, minimize traffic crashes, provide rapid transition 

across transportation modes, and connecting individuals with the movement of 

transport and goods. The Department has been proactive in encouraging smart 

growth in our communities and I will continue to work with other DOT modes including the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration to ensure we are moving in the same direction and optimizing opportunities. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JON TESTER TO

HEIDI KING

Question 1. Status of Low-Volume Vehicle Manufacturers Regulatory Guidelines: 

The FAST Act of 2015 directed NHTSA and EPA to issue by December 2016 regulatory guidelines that would allow certain vehicle manufacturers to produce annually a small number of replica classic cars. 

Why has NHTSA not issued the called-for guidelines? 

Answer. I assure you that this enabling regulation is a top priority of mine. Adhering to the regulatory process, NHTSA is finalizing its proposal that meets the 

FAST Act directive on replica cars. 

122 

Question 2. When will NHTSA issue the guidelines? 

Answer. NHTSA is finalizing the NPRM to address replica vehicles and working 

to publish the Notice in the Federal Register in May 2018. 

Question 3. Given that it is 18 months since the mandated deadline for the guidelines, would NHTSA consider issuing an interim rule allowing companies to register 

and begin production immediately while the agency works on a rule? 

Answer. An interim final rule would require a ‘‘good cause’’ exception from the 

notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. NHTSA is 

drafting the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to address replica vehicles, and 

working to publish the Notice in the Federal Register in May 2018. The timing and 

content of a final rule will be determined following the public comment process of 

the NPRM. 

Æ