The action involved the withdrawal of previously granted federal authorization for a specific urban infrastructure initiative. This initiative, centered in New York City, aimed to manage traffic flow and generate revenue through a system of tolls imposed on vehicles entering a designated zone. Federal approval is crucial for projects of this magnitude due to potential impacts on interstate commerce, environmental regulations, and funding opportunities.
The reversal of approval held significant implications for the project’s timeline, funding mechanisms, and ultimate viability. The initiative was projected to alleviate traffic congestion, improve air quality, and generate substantial revenue earmarked for improvements to the city’s public transportation system. Historically, similar congestion pricing models in other global cities have yielded positive results in terms of reduced traffic volume and increased investment in public transit. However, political shifts and changes in federal priorities can significantly impact the progress and implementation of such ambitious urban planning projects.
The following analysis will delve into the reasons cited for the rescission, the immediate consequences for the city’s transportation planning, and the potential pathways forward for the congestion pricing initiative. It will also examine the legal and political ramifications of the federal government’s involvement in local transportation projects.
1. Federal Approval Withdrawal
The withdrawal of federal approval represents a critical juncture in the progression of New York City’s congestion pricing plan. It signifies a reversal of prior federal consent, effectively impeding the project’s advancement and introducing considerable uncertainty regarding its future implementation.
-
Impact on Project Timeline
Federal approval is often a prerequisite for significant infrastructure projects, particularly those involving tolling or affecting interstate commerce. Its absence necessitates a reevaluation of the project’s timeline, potentially leading to substantial delays. This directly affects the projected benefits, such as reduced congestion and increased funding for public transportation, which are now pushed further into the future.
-
Implications for Funding Streams
Federal approval often unlocks access to federal funding opportunities. The withdrawal jeopardizes these potential funding sources, forcing the city to seek alternative means of financing the project. This could involve increased reliance on local taxes, private investment, or a scaled-down version of the original plan, each with its own set of challenges and potential drawbacks.
-
Legal and Regulatory Ramifications
The rescission of federal approval may trigger legal challenges from various stakeholders, including the city, transportation advocacy groups, and potentially even neighboring states. These legal battles could further delay the project and add to its overall cost. Moreover, the reversal may require the city to navigate a new set of regulatory hurdles to secure alternative approvals or waivers.
-
Precedent and National Implications
The federal government’s decision to rescind approval sets a precedent for future infrastructure projects involving federal oversight. It raises questions about the stability of federal commitments and the potential for political considerations to influence transportation planning decisions. This could discourage other cities from pursuing innovative congestion management strategies that rely on federal partnership and approval.
In summary, the federal approval withdrawal represents a significant setback for the New York City congestion pricing plan. It impacts project timelines, funding opportunities, legal landscapes, and broader policy implications, highlighting the intricate relationship between federal, state, and local authorities in the realm of infrastructure development.
2. Political Motivations Suspected
The rescission of federal approval for New York City’s congestion pricing plan by the Trump administration occurred within a politically charged environment, leading to widespread speculation that political considerations may have influenced the decision-making process. This context necessitates a critical examination of the potential motivations beyond purely technical or logistical concerns.
-
Partisan Alignment and Opposition
The congestion pricing plan was championed primarily by Democratic politicians in New York, while the Trump administration, led by a Republican president, often exhibited antagonism towards policies favored by Democratic-led states and cities. Rescinding approval could be interpreted as a manifestation of this partisan divide, intended to undermine a project associated with political opponents and to appeal to a specific voter base hostile to policies perceived as elitist or anti-car.
-
Leverage in Federal-State Negotiations
Federal approval for large-scale infrastructure projects is often a bargaining chip in negotiations between the federal government and state or local authorities. The rescission could have been a tactic employed by the Trump administration to exert leverage over New York on other policy issues, such as immigration enforcement, environmental regulations, or the allocation of federal funding for other projects. By withholding approval, the administration may have sought to pressure the state into concessions on unrelated matters.
-
Appealing to Specific Constituencies
Congestion pricing inherently involves charging drivers for access to certain areas, a policy that can be unpopular with some constituents, particularly those who rely heavily on personal vehicles and perceive the tolls as an unfair financial burden. Rescinding approval could have been a calculated move to appeal to this segment of the electorate, especially in regions where the Trump administration enjoyed strong support. This resonates with a broader pattern of prioritizing policies that benefit rural and suburban areas over dense urban centers.
-
Undermining Perceived “Liberal” Policies
Congestion pricing is often associated with progressive urban planning strategies aimed at reducing traffic congestion, promoting public transportation, and combating climate change. The Trump administration, which often expressed skepticism towards environmental regulations and prioritized deregulation, may have viewed the congestion pricing plan as a symbol of policies it opposed. Rescinding approval could therefore be interpreted as an attempt to undermine policies perceived as “liberal” or “anti-growth.”
The suspected political motivations behind the withdrawal of federal approval highlight the complex interplay between policy, politics, and infrastructure development. While the official reasons cited for the rescission may have focused on technical or procedural issues, the broader political context suggests that partisan alignment, leverage in federal-state negotiations, appeal to specific constituencies, and the desire to undermine perceived “liberal” policies may have played a significant role in the Trump administration’s decision. These factors underscore the challenges inherent in implementing large-scale infrastructure projects that are subject to the shifting tides of political power.
3. Funding Impact Uncertain
The withdrawal of federal approval for New York City’s congestion pricing plan by the Trump administration introduces substantial uncertainty surrounding the project’s funding. This uncertainty stems from the potential loss of federal contributions and the necessity to identify alternative revenue sources to realize the plan’s objectives.
-
Loss of Potential Federal Grants
Federal approval typically unlocks access to a range of federal grant programs and funding opportunities specifically designed to support transportation infrastructure projects. The rescission eliminates eligibility for these potential funds, leaving a significant financial gap. Examples include discretionary grants offered by the Department of Transportation, which can provide substantial capital for large-scale projects like congestion pricing. The implications are direct: the project’s financial foundation is weakened, and alternative funding strategies must be pursued.
-
Impact on Bonding Capacity
The anticipated revenue stream from congestion pricing was intended to support the issuance of municipal bonds to finance the project’s upfront costs. The uncertainty surrounding federal approval casts doubt on the reliability of that projected revenue, potentially reducing the city’s ability to secure favorable bond ratings and terms. A lower bond rating translates to higher borrowing costs, further straining the project’s financial resources. Examples of this effect can be seen in other infrastructure projects where fluctuating revenue projections impacted bonding capacity.
-
Need for Alternative Revenue Streams
With the potential loss of federal funding, New York City must explore alternative revenue streams to offset the financial shortfall. These could include increased local taxes, public-private partnerships, or scaled-down versions of the original project plan. However, each of these options carries its own challenges and potential drawbacks. Increased taxes can be politically unpopular, while public-private partnerships may entail concessions that reduce the public benefit of the project. The implications for the final scope and effectiveness of the congestion pricing plan are considerable.
-
Ripple Effects on Related Projects
The congestion pricing plan was not conceived in isolation but was intended to support broader transportation initiatives, including improvements to the city’s subway system and bus network. The uncertainty surrounding the plan’s funding directly impacts these related projects, potentially jeopardizing their timelines and scope. For example, funds generated by congestion pricing were earmarked for specific subway line upgrades, which may now face delays or cancellation due to the funding shortfall. This interconnectedness highlights the systemic implications of the Trump administration’s decision.
In conclusion, the funding impact uncertainty stemming from the rescission of federal approval by the Trump administration poses a significant challenge to New York City’s congestion pricing plan. The potential loss of federal grants, the impact on bonding capacity, the need for alternative revenue streams, and the ripple effects on related projects underscore the complex financial implications of this decision. These factors necessitate a reassessment of the project’s financial viability and a search for innovative funding solutions to ensure its successful implementation.
4. Project Delay Extended
The rescission of federal approval by the Trump administration for New York City’s congestion pricing plan directly contributed to a significant extension of the project’s anticipated timeline. This delay is not merely a postponement but a cascading series of setbacks that impact various facets of the project’s implementation and overall effectiveness.
-
Re-Evaluation of Project Timelines
The withdrawal of federal approval necessitates a comprehensive re-evaluation of the entire project timeline. Milestones previously established based on the assumption of timely federal action must now be adjusted. This includes revising schedules for environmental impact assessments, technology procurement, infrastructure construction, and public outreach campaigns. For instance, if the initial plan projected toll collection commencing in 2023, the rescission could push this date back by several years, depending on the time required to navigate new approval processes. The implications are far-reaching, affecting the project’s overall cost-benefit analysis and potentially undermining its long-term viability.
-
Uncertainty in Regulatory Approvals
Federal approval often streamlines subsequent regulatory processes at the state and local levels. Its absence introduces uncertainty and potential delays in securing necessary permits and clearances. New York State and City agencies may need to conduct additional reviews, address new concerns raised in the absence of federal oversight, or even modify the project design to comply with evolving regulatory standards. This added layer of complexity can further protract the project’s timeline and increase administrative costs. For example, obtaining environmental permits can be a lengthy process, and the lack of federal backing may embolden opposition groups to challenge the project in court, leading to further delays.
-
Disruptions to Contractual Agreements
The extended delay stemming from the rescission of federal approval can disrupt contractual agreements with vendors, consultants, and construction firms. Contracts may need to be renegotiated to account for the revised timeline, potentially leading to increased costs or even legal disputes. Companies that had committed resources to the project based on the initial schedule may be forced to reallocate those resources to other projects, creating further setbacks. For instance, a company contracted to install tolling infrastructure may face financial penalties if the project is delayed, leading to legal action and further complications.
-
Impact on Public Perception and Support
Prolonged delays can erode public support for the congestion pricing plan. As the project’s implementation is repeatedly pushed back, public skepticism may grow, leading to diminished enthusiasm and increased opposition. This can create a negative feedback loop, where declining public support makes it more difficult to secure the necessary political backing and funding for the project, further delaying its implementation. Examples from other infrastructure projects demonstrate that prolonged delays can significantly undermine public confidence and ultimately jeopardize the project’s success.
In summary, the rescission of federal approval by the Trump administration initiated a chain reaction that has significantly extended the project’s timeline. The re-evaluation of project milestones, uncertainty in regulatory approvals, disruptions to contractual agreements, and impact on public perception and support all contribute to this extended delay. The implications are considerable, affecting the project’s cost-benefit analysis, financial viability, and overall effectiveness in addressing traffic congestion and improving public transportation in New York City.
5. Legal Challenges Possible
The Trump administration’s rescission of approval for New York City’s congestion pricing plan created a ripe environment for potential legal challenges. The federal government’s action opened avenues for litigation based on procedural grounds, substantive arguments, and potential violations of administrative law.
-
Procedural Compliance Concerns
Legal challenges may arise if the Trump administration’s rescission process failed to adhere to proper administrative procedures. This includes compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which mandates a notice and comment period before significant regulatory actions. If the administration bypassed or inadequately fulfilled these requirements, parties with standing, such as New York City, could argue that the rescission was unlawful. A successful challenge on procedural grounds could force the administration to re-evaluate the decision following proper procedures.
-
Substantive Review Arguments
Potential legal challenges could focus on the substance of the rescission decision itself. Arguments could be made that the administration’s rationale for withdrawing approval was arbitrary and capricious, lacking a reasoned basis in fact or law. Plaintiffs might present evidence demonstrating that the congestion pricing plan aligns with federal transportation goals or that the administration’s stated concerns are unfounded. Courts typically defer to agency expertise, but this deference is not absolute, particularly if the agency’s decision appears politically motivated or lacks evidentiary support.
-
Environmental Impact Litigation
Legal challenges could also center on the environmental implications of the rescission. If the original approval was predicated on environmental benefits, such as reduced air pollution, opponents of the rescission might argue that the reversal violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This could involve claims that the administration failed to adequately assess the environmental consequences of withdrawing approval or that the decision undermines the goal of promoting sustainable transportation alternatives. Successful litigation on environmental grounds could compel the administration to conduct a new environmental review or reinstate the original approval.
-
Standing and Jurisdiction Disputes
Before addressing the merits of any legal challenge, courts must determine whether the plaintiffs have standing to sue and whether the court has jurisdiction over the dispute. The Trump administration could argue that New York City or other potential plaintiffs lack standing because they have not suffered a concrete and particularized injury as a result of the rescission. The administration might also challenge the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the matter is not ripe for judicial review or that the federal government has sovereign immunity. These preliminary legal battles could significantly delay or even preclude a substantive review of the rescission decision.
The prospect of legal challenges introduces a layer of uncertainty and potential delay to the future of New York City’s congestion pricing plan. The success of any such challenge hinges on complex legal arguments, procedural compliance, and the court’s interpretation of administrative law. The legal landscape remains dynamic, and the outcome of these potential challenges will significantly influence the fate of the congestion pricing initiative.
6. Regional Transportation Effects
The Trump administration’s rescission of approval for New York City’s congestion pricing plan has far-reaching consequences for regional transportation, extending beyond the immediate confines of Manhattan’s central business district. The planned congestion pricing zone was intended to alleviate traffic congestion within the city, generating revenue for improvements to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which serves a vast multi-state region. The withdrawal of approval directly impacts the MTA’s ability to modernize its infrastructure, including the subway and bus systems utilized by commuters from New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. By hindering the implementation of congestion pricing, the Trump administration’s decision effectively impeded the planned influx of funds crucial for addressing longstanding transit challenges that affect the entire region.
The effects are multifaceted. Reduced investment in the MTA translates to delayed upgrades to signaling systems, aging railcars, and deteriorating bus fleets, leading to less reliable service, increased commute times, and heightened passenger frustration. Furthermore, the cancellation of congestion pricing jeopardizes planned expansions of transit services to underserved areas within the region, potentially exacerbating existing disparities in transportation access. For example, the Gateway Program, a critical project to construct new rail tunnels under the Hudson River, relies in part on funds that were anticipated to be generated by congestion pricing. Without this revenue stream, the Gateway Program faces further delays, impacting interstate travel and commerce. The repercussions extend to environmental concerns as well. Increased reliance on automobiles, a likely consequence of stalled transit improvements, contributes to higher levels of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions throughout the metropolitan area.
In conclusion, the Trump administration’s action significantly undermines regional transportation planning and funding mechanisms. The ripple effects of this decision extend beyond New York City, impacting commuters, economic development, and environmental sustainability across the tri-state area. Understanding the intricate link between federal policy decisions and regional transportation networks is crucial for informed policymaking and effective resource allocation in the future. The rescission serves as a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of transportation systems and the potential consequences of politically motivated interventions in infrastructure development.
7. Environmental Goals Jeopardized
The Trump administration’s rescission of approval for New York City’s congestion pricing plan directly undermines several critical environmental goals. The plan, designed to reduce traffic congestion in Manhattan’s central business district, was projected to yield significant environmental benefits, including decreased air pollution, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and promotion of sustainable transportation alternatives. By withdrawing federal approval, the administration effectively negated the potential for these positive environmental outcomes.
The link between congestion pricing and improved air quality is well-established. Studies have consistently demonstrated that reducing vehicle traffic leads to a corresponding decrease in pollutants such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide, all of which contribute to respiratory illnesses and other health problems. The proposed congestion pricing zone was expected to deter a substantial number of vehicles from entering the area, resulting in cleaner air and improved public health, particularly for vulnerable populations living in close proximity to major roadways. Moreover, the revenue generated by congestion pricing was earmarked for investments in public transportation, further incentivizing commuters to shift from private vehicles to more sustainable modes of travel, such as subways and buses. Without these investments, the city’s ability to expand and modernize its public transit infrastructure is severely constrained, perpetuating reliance on automobiles and undermining long-term environmental sustainability. The rescission also impacts efforts to meet established greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Transportation is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in New York City, and congestion pricing was viewed as a key strategy for reducing the city’s carbon footprint. By hindering the implementation of this initiative, the Trump administration’s decision effectively jeopardized the city’s ability to achieve its climate goals and contribute to national and global efforts to combat climate change.
In conclusion, the Trump administration’s rescission of approval represents a setback for environmental protection in New York City and the broader region. By thwarting the implementation of congestion pricing, the administration effectively abandoned a proven strategy for reducing air pollution, promoting sustainable transportation, and mitigating climate change. The decision underscores the complex interplay between federal policy, urban planning, and environmental sustainability, highlighting the challenges of implementing effective environmental policies in the face of political opposition and shifting federal priorities. Addressing these challenges requires sustained commitment to evidence-based policymaking and a recognition of the critical role that transportation infrastructure plays in achieving environmental goals.
8. Interstate Cooperation Undermined
The Trump administration’s rescission of approval for New York City’s congestion pricing plan had repercussions beyond the city’s borders, straining interstate cooperation on regional transportation matters. The congestion pricing initiative was conceived, in part, to address transportation challenges that impact the broader metropolitan area, involving commuters and travelers from New Jersey and Connecticut. The federal action disrupted established cooperative frameworks and raised concerns about future collaboration on critical infrastructure projects.
-
Coordination Disrupted
The congestion pricing plan required ongoing coordination among New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, particularly concerning the allocation of toll revenue and the mitigation of potential traffic diversion to neighboring states. The rescission of federal approval undermined this established framework, creating uncertainty and distrust among the involved parties. For example, New Jersey officials expressed concerns that the lack of congestion pricing would exacerbate traffic congestion on their side of the Hudson River, necessitating costly infrastructure upgrades to accommodate diverted traffic. The reversal complicated efforts to forge consensus on regional transportation strategies.
-
Financial Implications for Regional Projects
The anticipated revenue generated by congestion pricing was intended to support broader transportation projects benefiting the entire tri-state region. This included contributions to the Gateway Program, a crucial initiative to construct new rail tunnels under the Hudson River, which directly impacts interstate travel and commerce. The rescission of federal approval jeopardized these planned contributions, placing a financial burden on participating states and potentially delaying or scaling back essential infrastructure improvements. The uncertainty surrounding funding created friction among the states, each vying for resources to address their own transportation needs.
-
Precedent for Federal Intervention
The Trump administration’s action set a precedent for federal intervention in regional transportation projects that require interstate cooperation. This raised concerns among state officials that future initiatives could be subject to political interference or arbitrary federal decisions, undermining the stability and predictability of regional planning processes. The rescission served as a cautionary tale, discouraging states from relying too heavily on federal commitments and fostering a climate of distrust in federal-state partnerships. The long-term consequences of this precedent remain to be seen, but it has undoubtedly complicated efforts to foster collaboration on future infrastructure projects.
-
Erosion of Trust and Good Faith
Successful interstate cooperation relies on trust and good faith among the participating parties. The Trump administration’s rescission of approval eroded this trust, creating a perception that federal commitments are not reliable and that regional agreements can be unilaterally overturned. This undermined the spirit of cooperation that is essential for addressing complex transportation challenges that transcend state boundaries. Rebuilding this trust will require sustained efforts to foster communication, transparency, and mutual respect among federal, state, and local authorities. The rescission highlighted the vulnerability of regional initiatives to political shifts and the importance of safeguarding the principles of cooperative federalism.
The ramifications of the Trump administration’s decision extended beyond the financial and logistical aspects of the congestion pricing plan. It struck at the heart of interstate cooperation, fostering distrust and undermining the collaborative spirit necessary for addressing shared transportation challenges. The incident serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between federal authority and state autonomy in the realm of infrastructure development, underscoring the need for a more predictable and cooperative framework for regional transportation planning.
Frequently Asked Questions
The following questions address key aspects of the Trump administration’s decision to rescind federal approval for New York City’s congestion pricing plan, providing clarity on its implications and ramifications.
Question 1: What was the basis for the Trump administration’s decision to rescind approval of the NYC congestion pricing plan?
The Trump administration cited a lack of sufficient environmental review and potential negative impacts on interstate commerce as primary reasons for rescinding the approval. Officials expressed concerns that the plan’s impact assessment was inadequate and failed to fully address potential burdens on commuters from New Jersey and other neighboring states.
Question 2: What specific federal actions were reversed by this decision?
The rescission effectively withdrew the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) prior approval for the congestion pricing plan, which had been necessary for the project to proceed. This action halted further progress on the plan, requiring New York City to seek new federal approvals or pursue alternative strategies.
Question 3: How did this decision affect the anticipated timeline for implementing congestion pricing?
The rescission caused significant delays in the implementation timeline. The project, originally slated to begin tolling in 2021 or 2022, faced indefinite postponement as a result of the withdrawn federal approval, requiring revisions to project schedules and renegotiation of related contracts.
Question 4: What were the potential financial consequences of the rescission?
The decision jeopardized billions of dollars in anticipated revenue that was earmarked for improvements to New York City’s public transportation system, including subway and bus upgrades. The city faced the challenge of identifying alternative funding sources to compensate for the loss of federal support.
Question 5: What legal challenges, if any, arose from the rescission?
The legal ramifications remained uncertain following the rescission. New York City had the option to pursue legal action against the federal government, arguing that the decision was arbitrary and capricious or violated federal environmental laws. The viability and success of such legal challenges were subject to judicial interpretation and the evolving legal landscape.
Question 6: How did this decision impact regional transportation planning?
The rescission created uncertainty and strained interstate cooperation on regional transportation matters. The congestion pricing plan had been viewed as a component of a broader strategy to address traffic congestion and improve mobility throughout the New York metropolitan area. The federal action complicated regional planning efforts and raised questions about the future of collaborative transportation initiatives.
The Trump administration’s rescission of approval had widespread ramifications, affecting project timelines, funding mechanisms, legal landscapes, and regional cooperation. These impacts continue to shape the ongoing discourse surrounding transportation infrastructure and federal-state relations.
The subsequent sections will analyze the long-term impacts of this decision and the potential pathways forward for addressing traffic congestion in New York City.
Navigating the Aftermath
The withdrawal of federal approval for New York City’s congestion pricing plan presents a complex challenge for policymakers, transportation planners, and stakeholders. Examining the situation carefully and adapting strategies is crucial.
Tip 1: Conduct a Thorough Re-Evaluation of Project Finances: A comprehensive reassessment of the project’s financial viability is essential. Explore alternative funding mechanisms, including state and local revenue sources, public-private partnerships, and revised bonding strategies, to offset the loss of potential federal funding.
Tip 2: Re-Engage with Federal Authorities: Persistently engage with federal transportation officials to explore potential pathways for reinstating federal support. Clearly articulate the project’s benefits, address previously raised concerns, and demonstrate the project’s alignment with national transportation priorities.
Tip 3: Bolster Regional Collaboration: Strengthen partnerships with neighboring states (New Jersey, Connecticut) to foster consensus on regional transportation solutions. Address concerns regarding traffic diversion and ensure equitable distribution of benefits across state lines through transparent communication and collaborative planning.
Tip 4: Proactively Address Environmental Concerns: Conduct a robust and comprehensive environmental impact assessment to address previously identified shortcomings. Quantify the environmental benefits of congestion pricing, such as reduced air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and implement mitigation measures to minimize potential negative impacts.
Tip 5: Conduct Legal Due Diligence: Carefully assess the legal landscape to determine the viability of potential legal challenges to the rescission decision. Explore all available legal avenues to defend the project and ensure compliance with administrative law and environmental regulations.
Tip 6: Enhance Public Engagement and Education: Implement a comprehensive public engagement strategy to educate stakeholders about the benefits of congestion pricing and address public concerns. Communicate effectively with residents, businesses, and community organizations to foster support and build consensus for the project.
A proactive and multifaceted approach, incorporating financial resilience, intergovernmental collaboration, environmental stewardship, legal preparedness, and public engagement, is critical to navigating the challenges presented by the rescission. A well-considered strategy maximizes the likelihood of securing future support for the congestion pricing initiative or identifying alternative solutions to address traffic congestion and improve transportation in New York City.
The next step involves analyzing the potential long-term implications and pathways toward alternative transportation solutions for New York City.
Conclusion
The Trump administration’s rescission of approval for New York City’s congestion pricing plan represents a significant setback for regional transportation planning and infrastructure investment. The withdrawal has ripple effects, impacting funding streams, project timelines, interstate cooperation, and environmental sustainability. This decision necessitates a comprehensive reevaluation of strategies for addressing traffic congestion and improving public transportation in the New York metropolitan area.
The long-term implications of this federal action warrant careful consideration. The event underscores the complex interplay between federal policy, regional planning, and local transportation needs. Moving forward, stakeholders must prioritize collaboration, innovation, and strategic resource allocation to ensure the development of a resilient and sustainable transportation system that serves the needs of all residents and commuters.
