Test. Test. Tom udall. Todd young. Captioning performed by vitac thats a really good question. Im glad you asked it. When something does become mandatory, it must have a very consistent repeatable Test Procedure and what we find is when a technology is new, for instance, a certain kind of alert or blind spot detection, we learn a lot from the fact there are a little bit of a difference in different folks that are adopting it or different manufacturers who are designing different systems. Thats a time of learning and then if it seems appropriate to adopt it as a mandatory standard, we can then identify which of them is best. So that is one of the reasons why when a technology is first introduced we allow some Consumer Experience and some innovation before a mandate you couldnt just make it mandatory and give them the flexibility to do it however makes sense while youre testing this. Under the laws that we execute we actually have to be to have a consistent Test Procedure. So we cant say do it and we will figure out later whether or not we can confirm youve done it. So i can we can talk a little bit more about that offline, but when we have a federal Motor VehicleSafety Standards, it will have a Test Procedure and a consistent engineering description for execution, which means theres only one way, or a narrower set of alternatives. Were very excited to see that consumers are adopting the technologies, an example would be blind spot detection i have a couple other questions. Sure. In 18 there is a small overall reduction in road deaths, but a 4 increase in cycling death excuse me, pedestrian deaths rose by 4 and cycling deaths went up by 10 . What is going on and what are you going to do about it . There are two pieces of that, recognizing the data that was just released was an early projecti projection, those numbers will change twice, one when we issue the numbers for 2018 with a fuller sample submitted by the states okay. Is this data valid . So the data is indicative of a trend, yes, weve seen an increase in fatalities of pedestrians and bicyclists in our work with states, in our Grant Programs, in our development of programs that states implemented at the local level we are supporting local programs to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety. So our work is largely twothirds of our budget is going to states for them to implement programs that are appropriate for their condition. As you know, here in the district of columbia, more than 50 of the fatalities in traffic situations are pedestrians. Thats also true in nevada. But its not true everywhere. So some states will choose to use their state grant funds to execute programs that address a pedestrian risk that is high in their area, other places it will be a speeding risk or an Impaired Driving risk and we develop programs so your answer is that you have a Grant Program and you let states and counties and municipal Transportation Planning organizations do what they see fit . We develop programs that you develop programs, but we do research that supports them, why he. Okay. Is there no place for nhtsa to develop best practices and implement them as opposed to just pushing money to states and counties . No, we certainly do that. We do behavioral research, mechanical research, we develop programs, with he develop Public Education details. Let me ask you a personal question. Is this alarming to you . As a former Law Enforcement officer who has worked crashes and taken care of people who were injured or killed, as a former 911 dispatcher and a former emt working in my community, yes, it is absolutely alarming and every single man and woman of nhtsa is committed 24 7 to doing everything that we can to support local traffic safety. We develop programs some of which are appropriate for distribution and application nationwide, sometimes we need to address problems locally. I mentioned drug Impaired Driving earlier, there are areas where opioids are the larger problem, there are parts of the country where meth is the larger problem. My name is expired, but i have no idea what this has to do with pedestrian deaths and cyclist deaths going up pra sip to usually. Thank you. So the chairman has stepped out so im going to take the gavel and call on myself. So i appreciate this hearing and im assuming that all the witnesses are supportive of what we did four years ago which was actually a longterm fast act, it was a fiveyear authorization, prior to that there had been 36 shortterm reauthorizations which i dont think anybody regards as helpful. Do you all agree that we should be working on another longterm reauthorization in terms of highway transportation . I see nodding of all the heads. We look forward to continuing to work with you. Okay. Good. Let me ask a couple questions that relate to, you know, one of the things that im going to be focused on in this reauthorization is the permitting streamlining, which i know secretary chow has been very focused on. It shouldnt take eight years to build a bridge or to permit a bridge in america, 19 years almost from planning to construction of our highways. We need to fix a broken federal permitting system. So were going to continue that. I know the secretary is focused on that. But the hearing here is focused more on safety, which is appropriate. Mr. Szabat, i want to ask you, in terms of the consideration of grants to be distributed by the build america bureau, you might know, but a lot of the members of this committee are also members of the Armed Services committee. Does the agency take into consideration the role that commercial ports play with regard to national defense, in particular department of defense designated strategic ports such as the port of anchorage, and should congress consider this during the reauthorization of the fast act . As you know a lot of our commercial issues are deeply integrated with regard to our National Security issues. Senator, thank you for that question and thank you for a question that touches on my previous role in the department. Thats why i asked you. I assumed that you had an ulterior motive, sir, but i was seven years as executive director of the maritime administration. I think as you are aware in asking the question, there is no Statutory Authority for the department to consider the strategic nature of the ports. Do you, though . I mean, whether you need the statutory consideration or not . Its what we would consider to be a plus factor when you look at it. Should congress wish to make that a mandatory factor, that would have to be done statutorily. Do you think thats a good idea . Thats certainly an issue that we would look forward to working with you, the committee staff, the Committee Members that are interested in this to find a way forward. Okay. Good. I look forward to working with you on that, if you view it as a plus factor, i think most of us view it as a plus factor and maybe getting it in statute would put an emphasis on that. Ms. King, i want to follow up on a couple issues that youve talked about in the questioning. You mentioned the education materials and Public Education campaign for Impaired Driving, particularly with, you know, drugs beyond just alcoholImpaired Driving. Are you focusing that in particular with regard to states like alaska or i was just talking to senator gardner, colorado, that have legalized marijuana . Is there an area that youre focusing on to help those states in particular . Our initial work has been driving Public Education with respect to marijuana impairment because we have found in our Market Research that users feel that they drive better. But do you focus on states that you know, there are certain states that have legalized this where there is more activity there. Have you given thought to focusing in those areas . Yes, we have actually first traveled to washington, we later traveled to denver in colorado to have meetings and learn from them and learn best practices. Have you traveled to alaska yet . I have not yet. I look forward to seeing you there soon. I would look forward to that. But were sharing best practices. One of the things we find is the states who have been early early legalizers of marijuana products Like Washington and colorado, they have a great deal to learn. Other states that were early medical marijuana adopters like the state of california also have something to share so we visited places, iowa, new jersey, other places we just had a meeting in florida can i get your commitment to get to alaska soon . We have these issues and i think its important. I would love that. Thank you for the honor to do so. Great. Let me ask a related question. Senator schatz was talking about in terms of bicycle traffic fatalities. We also have a big community, cycling community. The municipality of anchorage and bike alaska, they have a program theyve put together called vision zero. Yes. Which is working on a coordinated approach, data driven, to have a Public Education, best practices, as you mentioned, with regard to these higher fatality rates and injury rates for bicyclists. Is nhtsa doing work with local partners like vision zero to identify best practices, what youre learning and how do we get involved in that at the local level . I think its really important that youre learning from them and theyre learning from you. Absolutely. One of the advantages of the local Community Groups working through vision zero or road to zero which are more international learnings is that the solutions can be best adapted to local conditions. So, for instance, the infrastructure needs might be a part of it, Public Education or traffic patterns might be a part of it. So all of that can be incorporated and encouraged for adoption in local laws, where the local jurisdiction is stronger. Nhtsa is supportive of all of those efforts and welcomes any opportunity to support those efforts to drive local traffic safety. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator sullivan. Senator markey. Thank you, mr. Chair man. Administrator king, im very disturbed with the administrations roll back of the fuel economy standards on 54. 5 miles per gone to 37 miles per gone. I think that it states that the Trump Administration are technological nehalists. These recommendations that the Obama Administration put on the book would back out 3 Million Barrels of oil a day, which is still the equivalent of what were importing from overseas, especially when we see incidents in the gulf of hormuz and the other areas of the middle east, we can see how quickly the United States could get drawn into essentially a war over oil. And so our answer has to be that we are the technological giants and were going to invent the vehicles that back out the need for oil and we will strengthen our hand diplomatically in the middle east very dramatically if we do that, otherwise we are over there primarily because of the oil, lets just be honest about it. So i dont understand, ms. King, what your logic is in rolling back these fuel economy standards, but i will tell you that ultimately you are on weak ground because, amongst other things, pretty much the entire Auto Industry is protesting that youre taking this action, that youre going to create a divide in the country between all of the american states that follow the california waiver and the Trump Administration, and they are saying its going to be very bad for business. So i guess what i would ask you to do is to explain whether or not you believe it is possible for the United States to reach 54. 5 miles per gallon, and it is wise for us to just stop dead i will ask the question this way, in your opinion is it wise just to stop at 2020 and not to advance all the way out to 2025 in improvement of the fuel economy standards . Do you agree with that . Senator markey, im so pleased that you asked. I have good news that we have proposed a rule but not yet finalized it, in that proposal we solicited comment on a wide range of options including the current standard that was issued in 2012. So we are reviewing the comments now and have not yet selected a final. There is no roll back, there is consideration of 650 to 700,000 comments on a complicated and important rule. Im very pleased to have your enthusiasm for that. To answer your question no, my enthusiasm is for the Auto Industry to reach 54. 5 miles per gallon. My enthusiasm is not for 650,000 comments to be heard over this question, it is just to continue on the course to solve this problem. I am pleased to be representing consumers interests here as well. I recognize the auto manufacturers have a very important voice. We also want to make sure that consumers needs and safeties are considered as congress directed me and the e. A to consider. I will just say this, that 13 federal agencies in november of 2018 concluded that if we continue with business as usual the planet is going to warm by 9 degrees fahrenheit by the year 2021 by the year 2100. So from my perspective this is just not an option. It also says that the seas are going to rise by 11 feet if we dont take action. So we have the blueprint from all of our own federal agencies as to the danger, we know that Greenhouse Gases are the largest cause of it and we also know that this is the largest single reduction thats ever been proposed by any law of any country in the history of the world. So i just disagree with you given the urgency of the problem. And if i may say that fuel economy is also pro consumer, its pro safety and the rules that are on the books right now are the answer. I just also want to say to you, mr. Batory, i know that there has been a withdrawal of the twoperson crew rule, but i want to tell you that im going to introduce the safe freight act, that legislation would mandate twoperson crew Safety Standards going forward. I think that your agency has abdicated its responsibility to provide oversight and safety rules, but to actively declare that no state could take action as well, just leaves a regulatory black hole that endangers [ inaudible ]. Mr. Chairman, i thank you so much. Thank you, senator markey. I have senator scott and then senator tester. Mr. Szabat, can you tell me under the first of all, thank you all for being here and thanks for your hard work. On infra allocated 4. 5 billion in grants over the life of the fast act. How much has been spent, do you know . Do any of you know . We have that information, senator. My apologies for not having it here in front of me, but we can get that back to you for the record. If you can get it to me and if you can get it to me by state. Of course. And do you take into consideration the amount of tax revenues, gas tax revenues, that come in and how you allocate those 4. 5 billion or not . For the discretionary Grant Program, senator, thank you for the question, this is a good one, one of the factors that we look at is the local match as opposed to what is being proposed for the grant itself as opposed to the overall tax rate of the state. Thanks. Mr. Martinez, my father was a truck driver and he would be real excited now because Truck Drivers get paid a lot more than what he got paid when i was growing up. In florida we have in florida you can drive in state from 18 to 20, but you cant cross state lines. I have cosponsored a bill that senator young has allowed people to start driving at 18 nationally. What do you think about that . Thank you, senator. The good news is that we have recently undertaken the under 21 military Pilot Program at the direction of congress to study those who have had military experience driving heavy trucks either as they come out of the military, National Guard, reserves, and we have started engaging with carriers and they will we need at least 200 participants to begin that Pilot Program. We also have an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking out asking for input from the industry as to what should we look at if we were going to move beyond that to a broader population. So will you take a position on senator youngs bill or not . I mean, is it typical im new, ive been here six months we generally to ask you all to take a position and give feedback or not . We generally would not do that. What we will do, as we are doing now, is conduct a Pilot Program or study to see if we can get some data before we move forward on that, but obviously we want to engage with congress on this issue because i hear it every day from the stakeholders all around the country and we understand that there is a shortage of drivers, so we want to be helpful there, but our primary focus remains safety. And have you do you have any data to suggest the states that have reduced it to 18 like florida, that they are you know, there are more issues there . And that is the problem that we face is that we dont have hard data on that, and thats what were hoping to get from this Pilot Program. I take your point that in large geographic states, florida, california, new york where im from originally, you can drive all over the state, but you cant cross state borders. That is it makes you scratch your head. The rule has been in place since the 1930s, so it is something it deserves a good hard look now because things have changed. We have new technologies that may be able to monitor and tell us not all drivers under 21 are the same. I know you have a lot more monitoring now. Yes. My father would not like to fill out the logbooks. I think he generally pulled them out whe