THE HONORABLE JAMES F. PORTS, JR.
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 16, 2008

Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to discuss motor vehicle safety issues.  I want to express my appreciation for this Committee’s support for highway safety programs.  Your leadership and support have made significant contributions to advancing the cause of highway safety and improving the quality of life in communities across the Nation. 

Transportation safety is a top priority for Secretary Peters and President Bush, and our mission at NHTSA is very straightforward:  to save lives and prevent injuries.  In 2005, according to the Centers for Disease Control, once again motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death for Americans for every age 2 through 34.  In 2006, more than 42,600 people lost their lives on U.S. roadways and 2.6 million were injured in vehicle crashes.  The associated financial costs are staggering:  over $230 billion each year.

What makes that situation even more distressing and frustrating is that many of these deaths were preventable.  Over 90 percent of crashes are caused by human factors, such as speeding, lack of seat belt use and alcohol impairment.  We must aggressively continue to work to change driving behaviors.  Advances in new technology, such as Electronic Stability Control, will also play an important role in reducing traffic fatalities in the future.

NHTSA has a multi-pronged approach designed to address behavioral safety factors.  We use a comprehensive, data-driven process to identify and break down the problem into its basic elements, then develop and test countermeasure strategies and partner with the States and many traffic safety organizations to implement safety programs. 

One of the areas where new advances in technology linked to behavioral programs shows strong promise is in reducing impaired driving crashes.  Impaired driving remains one of the leading causes of traffic crashes and fatalities in the U.S. 

In 2006, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for more than 13,400 deaths or 32 percent of all traffic fatalities.  Impaired drivers also take a terrible toll on our most precious resource – our children.  In 2006, 598 children under the age of 18 were killed in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver.  Of these, 353 children were killed in a vehicle driven by an alcohol-impaired driver.  Another 170 children were occupants of another vehicle involved in a crash with vehicle driven by alcohol-impaired driver and 75 were pedestrians or other non-occupants struck by an alcohol-impaired driver.

NHTSA’s approach to reducing these preventable fatalities includes: 

• High visibility enforcement campaigns targeting impaired driving, combining the efforts of State and local law enforcement partners with national promotional efforts to increase enforcement and create a general deterrence to drinking and driving.
• Support for the criminal justice system to prosecute and adjudicate impaired driving cases.  In particular, we are supporting increased training and education for prosecutors and judges, State Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutors to provide technical assistance to prosecutors handling driving while impaired (DWI) cases, and expanded use of DWI courts. These courts have been shown to reduce recidivism by combining close supervision and mandatory alcohol treatment for DWI offenders and alcohol misuse problems. 
• Expanding the use of ignition interlocks and pursuing other advanced alcohol detention technology solutions.  Alcohol ignition interlocks have been available for some time, but their use has been relatively limited.  There is a growing awareness that they can play an important role in reducing recidivism and States are starting to require their use for first offenders.  Drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level of .08 or higher involved in fatal crashes were eight times more likely to have a prior conviction for DWI than were drivers with no alcohol in 2006.  Studies have shown that convicted DWI offenders with interlocks are more than 60 percent less likely to recidivate than comparable drivers without interlocks. 

NHTSA is also working with the automobile industry to fund vehicle-based impairment detection technology research.  Vehicle sensors that determine how much alcohol is in a driver’s system, and could be offered on a voluntary, market-driven basis, offer the potential for significant future reductions.  While much of this technology is still in the developmental stage, NHTSA plays an important leadership role in working with national partners and the private sector to ensure that this research continues full speed ahead. 

There are also other behavioral-related technology systems that can improve vehicle safety.  Seat belt reminder systems can be helpful in addressing seat belt use.  This technology has improved greatly from its earliest versions back in the 1970s.  Lack of seat belt use continues to be a major factor in motor vehicle fatalities.  Research has shown that belt use is the most effective traffic safety countermeasure available to prevent fatalities and injuries.  Seat belts saved an estimated 75,000 lives between 2002 – 2006. 

High visibility enforcement campaigns – like our “Click It or Ticket It” campaign – together with strong primary seat belt laws have proven to be the most effective way to get more people to buckle up.  However, progress has been hindered by the fact that only 26 States have primary enforcement laws.  One State has no adult seat belt law and the other 23 have less effective secondary laws that only allow officers to issue a seat belt citation to a motorist after they stop the driver for another violation. 

The effectiveness of primary belt laws shows up clearly when comparing States.  The national seat belt use rate in 2007 was 82 percent.  But in States with primary seat belt laws, the belt use rate was 87 percent.  Indeed, in some States with primary belt laws, such as Hawaii, Oregon and Washington, seat belt use rates are now higher than 95 percent.  States without primary belt laws have an average use rate of 73 percent – and the gap between States with and without primary laws is growing every year. 

Higher belt use rates translate directly into saved lives.  States with primary belt laws have a 9 percent lower passenger vehicle occupant fatality rate – 0.97 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to 1.06 – than the other States. 

In addition to promoting high visibility enforcement and encouraging States to enact primary belt laws, NHTSA’s occupant protection program focuses on high-risk groups, such as rural residents, pickup truck drivers and teens.

We also continue to provide leadership on safety for children.  The country has made great strides in increasing occupant protection among young children.  Restraint use for children is at an all-time high – more than 98 percent for those less than 1 year old and 96 percent for 1 to 3 year-olds.  Much of this success is due to the network of more than 30,000 dedicated child passenger safety technicians across the country that NHTSA has helped develop and nurture over the past 10 years, along with the American Automobile Association and, more recently, Safe Kids WorldWide.  These safety advocates work with families to educate parents on the correct use of safety seats.  Technology such as the Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children  (LATCH) system has also helped to increase the percentage of safety seats installed correctly and we are working to make LATCH even more effective. 

Recognizing the importance of LATCH, on January 30, 2008, Secretary Peters and Administrator Nason announced a comprehensive upgrade to NHTSA’s Ease of Use child seat rating program.  This important consumer information program provides parents with comparative information that they can use when selecting child restraints.  The new program includes, for the first time, the use of stars to convey rating information to consumers as well as expanded criteria to better evaluate child restraint labels, LATCH, and child restraint harness designs.   We believe that these enhancements will lead to child restraints that are easier to use and continue providing manufacturers with an incentive to distinguish their products based on its ease of use. 

However, there is still more work to be done to reach older children.  For the 4 – 7 year-old group, restraint use drops to 85 percent.  But as more States pass booster seat laws, we anticipate that this number will rise.  

One of the most challenging areas we face today is motorcycle safety.  The number of fatalities continues to rise.  In 2006, 4,810 motorcyclists were killed – an increase of 5 percent over the 2005 number and a 127 percent increase since 1997.  NHTSA supports comprehensive efforts to reduce motorcycle-related crashes and injuries, including the use of motorcycle helmets. 

In February 2008, legislation was submitted to Congress to allow States to use Section 2010 funding to promote the use of motorcycle helmets.  Currently, States are limited to using the funds for motorcycle safety training and motorist awareness programs only.  Secretary Peters has proposed legislation that would allow States the flexibility to spend these funds on education concerning the importance of helmet use.  

In November 2007, Secretary Peters announced a new Departmental Action Plan to Reduce Motorcycle Fatalities.  The plan includes a comprehensive range of initiatives including rider education, tougher standards for helmet certification labeling, law enforcement training, and road designs that consider motorcycle handling dynamics.

The growing number of older drivers also requires attention.  The United States is facing a surge in the population of those over age 65.  In 2006, there were 30.1 million older licensed drivers – an 18 percent increase from 1996.  NHTSA’s policy is to promote safe mobility for older road users (age 65 and older), help seniors to drive as long as they can do so safely, and encourage the development of transportation alternatives for those who can no longer drive. 

NHTSA developed an Older Driver strategic plan to better target agency programs and resources to address this at-risk and growing population.  Key areas of focus include: Screening and Assessment; Licensing; Counseling by Medical Providers; Public Information and Program Promotion; and Other Activities.

Most older drivers are aware of their declining functional abilities and self-regulate by curtailing their driving – they do not drive in poor weather or at night and avoid rush hour.  However, some older drivers are either unable or unwilling to recognize their limitations.  Better screening and skill assessment devices are needed for these drivers.  Improved vehicle and road engineering is also needed to increase crash survivability for older drivers, occupants, and pedestrians. 

At the other end of the driving spectrum, NHTSA also has a strategic approach to addressing teen drivers – who are overrepresented in vehicle crashes.  In 2006, young drivers, between 15 and 20 years old, accounted for 6.4 percent (13.0 million) of the total number of drivers, but accounted for nearly 13 percent (7,463) of the drivers involved in fatal crashes. 

In fact, more teens are killed in motor vehicle crashes than by homicide and suicide combined.  To address this challenge, NHTSA has developed a program strategy with several priority areas: 

• Encouraging States to enact effective graduated driver licensing laws (GDL).  GDL controls for immaturity and inexperience by gradually exposing young novice drivers to the most risky driving situations.  While 46 States and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have some kind of GDL law, many States need to enhance their GDL provisions to maximize this benefit.
• Focusing on increasing the use of seat belts by teens, who have one of the lowest use rates.  In 2006, 64 percent of 15-20 year-old passenger vehicle occupants killed in crashes were not restrained.  NHTSA encourages States to put a special emphasis on teen drivers during seat belt enforcement campaigns, and has developed communication and outreach programs to complement law enforcement activities. 
• Limiting youth access to alcohol.  Studies have shown that access to alcohol contributes to higher teen crash rates.  Strategies to address youth access to alcohol include highly visible enforcement of laws against purchasing or otherwise providing alcohol for youth; and actions directed at youth, including “use and lose” laws that confiscate the driver’s licenses of underage drinkers, law enforcement “party patrols,” peer education, and penalties for using false identification. 
• Encouraging parents to take a greater role in supervising their teen drivers.  In fact, parents can now monitor their teenage driving children through the use of technology that utilizes global positioning devices. 

Vehicle-based technological advances will continue to play a major role in reducing crashes and fatalities.  Advances in computers and electronics have opened possibilities that were unimaginable 25 years ago.  Examples of innovative current and emerging safety technologies today include:

• Lane departure warning systems that use cameras to help keep the driver in the appropriate lane.
• Forward collision warning systems that use radar to sense traffic ahead.
• Automated crash notification systems that use GPS and wireless technology to instantly alert authorities to the location of a serious crash. 
• Electronic stability control technology (ESC) that can help prevent skids and rollovers.  ESC will be required on all passenger vehicles starting in 2011.  This device alone has the potential to save thousands of lives every year.  These systems are second only to seat belts in terms of the potential for saving lives and reducing injuries. 
• Tire pressure warning systems that tell a driver when the tires are below the minimum acceptable level of tire pressure are now required on all passenger vehicles starting with the 2008 models. 

To help motivate automobile manufacturers to install voluntary safety technology in new vehicles, Secretary Peters announced just last week plans to expand the range of safety technology evaluated in the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). 

But even the best technology cannot always prevent crashes.  When crashes do occur, having an effective and coordinated emergency medical services system could literally mean the difference between life and death.  NHTSA is focusing on strengthening trauma care and emergency medical services (EMS) by providing national leadership and coordination through the Federal Interagency Committee on EMS and the National EMS Advisory Council.  NHTSA supports comprehensive, data-driven and research-based EMS systems to improve the emergency care provided to patients from motor vehicle crashes and other medical emergencies. 

Through these behavioral and technology efforts, NHTSA seeks to reduce the toll of motor vehicle crashes in this country.  Many of these crashes and fatalities are preventable, and through greater implementation of proven safety countermeasures, we believe that thousands of additional lives could be saved every year. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your consideration and this subcommittee’s ongoing efforts to improve highway safety.  I would be pleased to answer any questions.

Statement of

Mr. James F. Ports, Jr.
Deputy Administrator
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

before the

Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Insurance and Automotive Safety
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States Senate

Oversight Hearing on

Passenger Vehicle Roof Strength

June 4, 2008

Mr. Chairman, I am Jim Ports, Deputy Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).  I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to discuss the important issue of rollover protection, and particularly roof crush safety.

Every death and serious injury that occurs on our Nation’s highways is a tragedy.  Rollover crashes account for about one-third of the nearly 30,000 light vehicle occupant fatalities that occur each year.  I share the same feelings of concern and empathy as you for the individuals and families who have been tragically affected by these dreadful crashes, and extend my deepest condolences to them.

I am proud to say that NHTSA has taken significant steps to reduce the deaths and serious injuries that occur due to rollover crashes.  Rollover crashes are complex and chaotic events.  They can range from a single quarter turn to eight or more quarter turns, with the duration of the rollover crash lasting from one to several seconds.  The wide range of rollover conditions occurs because these crashes largely occur off road where the vehicle motion is highly influenced by roadside conditions.  Also, rollover crashes tend to occur at higher speeds than other crash types due to the energy required to initiate them.

The agency developed a comprehensive plan to address these crashes and has made great strides to implement these strategies.  It is important to realize that each initiative in NHTSA’s comprehensive program addresses a different aspect of the rollover problem.  Our strategy is to first reduce the occurrence of rollover crashes, secondly keep occupants inside the vehicle when rollovers do occur, and finally to better protect the occupants kept inside the vehicle during the rollover.  Each of these three initiatives must work together to address the various aspects of the rollover problem.   

The most effective way to reduce deaths and injuries in rollover crashes is to prevent the rollover crash from occurring.  Two agency efforts have been taken to reduce the occurrence of rollover crashes -mandating that all passenger vehicles be equipped with Electronic Stability Control and incorporating a rollover rating into the agency’s 5-star vehicle safety ratings (known as the New Car Assessment Program).

In April 2007, NHTSA published a final rule establishing requirements for Electronic Stability Control, or ESC, in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses weighing less than 10,000 pounds.  ESC systems use automatic computer-controlled braking of individual wheels to assist the driver in maintaining control in critical driving situations.  ESC is the most significant safety advancement since the introduction of seat belts.  The agency estimates that this technology will save up to 9,600 lives in all types of crashes annually once all light vehicles on the road are equipped with ESC.  These safety benefits will occur in all types of crashes where the driver would lose control of the vehicle and the vehicle would crash off the road or into another vehicle.  However, the lion’s share of these benefits will be in rollover crashes, where it is estimated that ESC systems will reduce about one-half (4,200 to 5,500) of the approximately 10,000 deaths each year resulting from rollover crashes.

NHTSA incorporated a rollover static stability factor into its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) in 2001.  This consumer information program uses market forces to encourage manufacturers to make safety improvements not the least of which has been the voluntary adoption of ESC systems in many vehicles, including sport utility vehicles.  In the seven years since incorporation into NCAP, we estimate that the risk of rollover in a single vehicle crash for an average sport utility vehicle has been reduced by nearly 20 percent, and that an average pickup rollover risk has been reduced almost 10 percent. 

When a rollover crash does occur, it is critical to keep the occupant inside the vehicle.  The fatality rate for an ejected vehicle occupant is three times as great as that for an occupant who remains inside the vehicle.  Our crash data show that about one-half of the people killed in vehicles that rolled over were completely ejected, and another 10 percent of those killed were partially ejected.  So mitigating ejections offers potential for significant safety gains.  Safety belts are the most effective crashworthiness countermeasure in reducing ejected rollover fatalities.  In fact, seat belts reduce the probability of ejection by 91% in fatal crashes in passenger cars and light trucks.  In addition to our successful efforts to increase seat belt use, NHTSA also has strength requirements for door latches and a forthcoming SAFETEA-LU proposal for ejection mitigation.

Finally, in addition to rollover crash prevention and ejection mitigation, we strive to better protect the occupants kept inside the vehicle during the rollover through enhanced roof crush resistance.  In 1973, the United States became the first country to adopt a roof strength requirement.  Since that time, Canada and Saudi Arabia have also adopted a similar requirement.  No other government anywhere in the world has any requirement for roof strength. 

Each initiative in NHTSA’s comprehensive program to address the different aspects of the rollover problem is important because each initiative has a different target population for which that initiative will be effective.  Each of these three initiatives must work together to address the various aspects of the rollover problem.  However, it is important to understand which portion of the rollover problem can be addressed by each of these three initiatives so that there is a clear and correct understanding of the safety benefits potentially associated with each of the different types of actions to reduce rollover deaths and injuries.  

In August 2005, NHTSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to upgrade the roof crush requirements of light passenger vehicles.  Among the major provisions, the NPRM proposed to extend application of the standard to heavier vehicles, increase the roof strength requirements so that a vehicle would sustain a load equal to 2.5 times its unloaded weight, and require a new headroom criterion.  The agency has received a large number of comments from industry, public interest groups, and other parties addressing significant issues related to this proposed rule. 

In response to extensive public interest and safety advocate comments on the NPRM, a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) was published on January 30, 2008.  The SNPRM modified our original proposal to include consideration of a two-sided test requirement, as well as soliciting comments to allow the agency the potential to go beyond a 2.5 Strength to Weight Ratio (SWR).   Subsequent to issuance of the NPRM, the agency conducted extensive testing of current production vehicles to, among other things, determine the effects of two-sided testing and to assess the roof strengths of vehicles currently on the market.  These test results were released in the SNPRM. 

Since issuance of the NPRM in 2005, NHTSA has collected and analyzed additional crash data, tested the strength of vehicle roofs in the vehicle fleet, completed cost and lead-time studies, and completed other analyses important for the final rule development.  The agency is in the final stages of its work to issue the final rule.  Because we are still in rulemaking on this Standard, we are not able to discuss specific decisions related to estimates of lives saved, stringency of the requirements, or other issues related to the final rule. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your consideration and this subcommittee’s ongoing efforts to improve highway safety.  I would be pleased to answer any questions.

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE MARY E. PETERS
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION,
UNITED STATES SENATE

February 28, 2008

Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget request for the U.S. Department of Transportation.  With me today is Bobby Sturgell, the Acting Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

President Bush is requesting $68.2 billion for America’s transportation network in the next fiscal year, including funding for the Department’s mandatory programs.  We are working with the President to hold the line on spending, while giving travelers and taxpayers the best possible value for their transportation dollars by transforming the way our transportation system works and is funded.  At the Department of Transportation, our focus is on finding real transportation solutions that make travel safer, improve the performance of our transportation systems so that they operate more efficiently and serve us better, and apply advanced technologies and contemporary approaches to today’s transportation challenges.

Consistent with these priorities, nearly 31 percent of the funds requested for FY 2009 support safety programs and activities.  The budget allows us to build on our successes in delivering safer transportation systems by focusing on problem areas like runway incursions, as well as motorcycle crashes and pedestrian injuries on the road.  It is important that we continue a data-driven safety focus that allows us to target resources more effectively.

Just as the budget supports continued strong progress on the safety front, it also builds on our comprehensive efforts to identify new partners, new financing, and new approaches to reduce congestion.  One example is the New York region where the Bush Administration has moved aggressively to alleviate congestion in the air and on the ground.  The Administration recently announced short-term measures to bring passengers relief from chronic flight delays, and we have been supporting Mayor Bloomberg’s efforts to reduce the crippling congestion on the streets of Manhattan.  If last year’s record traffic jams and flight delays taught us anything, it is that traditional financial approaches are not capable of producing the results we need to keep America’s economy growing and America’s families connected.

The President’s budget includes $14.6 billion for the FAA.  In addition to critical new technology, the budget includes sufficient resources to hire and train an additional 306 air traffic controllers ‑ people who are key to keeping the aviation system safe.  The FY 2009 budget request would more than triple investment in the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), providing $688 million to implement enhancements such as Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) and provide funding for key research and technologies to enable the transformation from radar-based to satellite-based navigation systems.

The FY 2009 budget once again provides the framework of the Next Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act (S. 1076, H.R. 1356), the Administration’s proposal sent to Congress last year that will make flying more convenient for millions of travelers.  To accommodate anticipated demand by 2025, our aviation system requires a more reliable and responsive source of revenue to fund the modern technology required to manage this expanded capacity.  The investment in NextGen will allow the FAA not only to handle 2 to 3 times more aircraft, but also to maintain and improve the already high level of safety, reduce flight delays, and reduce noise near airports.

The budget request assumes Congressional passage of the President’s reauthorization proposal for FAA programs and revenue streams.  This proposal would move from the current system of excise taxes to a hybrid cost-based system of taxes and user fees.  It is increasingly clear that such a fundamentally different approach is needed to finance and manage our air traffic control system, as well as our increasingly congested airports.  The current financing system is not designed to support the growing consumer demand for air travel. 

The Administration’s comprehensive proposal would modernize how we finance our Nation’s air traffic control system.  Many of the nations around the globe, including Canada, the U.K., Australia, and Germany, have implemented air traffic control systems in which the charges levied on users are tied to the actual costs of providing air traffic services. This rational approach accomplishes two major objectives simultaneously.  First, what operators pay to use air traffic services will be closer to what it costs to provide those services.  This will encourage each operator to use those air traffic services according to their perceived value.  Because the existing system of taxes currently has no relationship to costs, in some cases operators are paying too much for the services they actually use, while in other cases they are using air traffic services for which they pay too little.  This leads to inefficient provision and use of services and does not make economic sense.

On the other hand, a cost-based system makes more economic sense.  We will be able to provide services for which the operators are willing to pay, while user fee revenues could be dedicated to modernizing an aging and strained air traffic control system that would dramatically expand the capacity of the system and lower unit operating costs over time. 

Unfortunately, a divided user community has prevented this necessary proposal from moving forward, resulting in average American airline passengers paying higher prices and having fewer travel choices.  In addition, our country’s global aviation preeminence may not be sustainable as many countries have established air traffic control pricing models that will enable them to modernize as demand grows. 

Notwithstanding the lack of progress on modernizing the national air traffic financing system, the Department of Transportation has taken several actions to ease congestion throughout the nation’s airspace and allow market forces to allocate scarce airspace efficiently in the New York region.  We have announced short-term caps for New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport and will soon issue an order to implement caps at Newark Liberty International Airport.  Any additional capacity developed at these airports will be leased to the highest bidder. 

In addition, we have proposed changes in our rates and charges policy to allow airports to charge more to aircraft using the airport during peak periods, providing an incentive for airlines to spread out their operations during the course of the day and maximize the use of limited airport and airway infrastructure.  Finally, we are developing policies that would allow the expanded use of pricing for the very few airports where demand has outstripped supply. 

Congestion triggered by over-scheduling can be addressed in one of three ways: (1) ignore it and eventually consumers will begin avoiding flights that rarely arrive on time; (2) impose a federal cap on operations and essentially limit access of anyone not already operating at the airport; or (3) allow market forces to grant airport access to those operators able to make the best use of it.  Option 1 is clearly unacceptable to the public, Congress, and this Administration. On the other hand, while market forces under option 3 are in some ways unpredictable, history has demonstrated that they are the best tool to use to allocate a scarce resource.

FY 2009 is the final year of the current surface transportation authorization – the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:  A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).  The President’s budget fulfills the President’s commitment to provide the six-year, $286.4 billion investment authorized by SAFETEA-LU.  For 2009, the Budget provides $51.7 billion for highways, highway safety, and public transportation.

To honor that commitment, even with an anticipated shortfall in the Highway Account balance of the Highway Trust Fund, the President is requesting temporary authority to allow “repayable advances” between the Highway Account and the Mass Transit Account in the Highway Trust Fund.  This flexibility will get us through the current authorization without any impact on transit funding in 2009; however, unreliable Trust Fund revenues are another sign that we need to more aggressively begin moving away from our reliance on fuel taxes by partnering with State and local governments willing to develop more effective means to finance our surface transportation infrastructure.

Like aviation, technology must play an important role in relieving traffic on our Nation’s highways.  Through programs like our Urban Partnerships and Corridors of the Future initiatives, we have been aggressively pursuing effective new strategies to reverse the growing traffic congestion crisis.  The interest around the country has proven quite strong – over 30 major U.S. cities responded to our call for innovative plans to actually reduce congestion, not simply to slow its growth.

The FY 2009 budget would encourage new approaches in fighting gridlock by proposing to use $175 million in inactive earmarks and 75 percent of certain discretionary highway and transit program funds to fight congestion, giving priority to projects that combine a mix of pricing, transit, and technology solutions.  While State and local leaders across the country are aggressively moving forward, Congressional support and leadership is critical.  These projects will help us find a new way forward as we approach reauthorization of our surface transportation programs.

Accessible and cost-effective transit projects also help fight congestion, and the President’s budget includes over $10 billion for transit programs.  The President’s budget includes $6.2 billion to help meet the capital replacement, rehabilitation, and refurbishment needs of existing transit systems.  Also included is $1.4 billion for major New Starts projects, which will provide full funding for fifteen commuter rail projects that are currently under construction, as well as proposing new funding for two additional projects.  Another $200 million will be used to fund thirteen projects under the Small Starts program.  All told, one of every seven dollars in the President’s FY 2009 transportation budget is proposed for transit.

It is increasingly clear that America’s transportation systems are at a crossroads.  Even as we continue to make substantial investments in our Nation’s transportation systems, we realize that a business-as-usual approach to funding transportation programs will not work much longer.  Long-term, we need serious reform of our approaches to both financing and managing our transportation network to win the battle against congestion.

We also urge action on making needed reforms to the Nation’s Intercity Passenger Rail system.  The President’s FY 2009 budget provides a total funding level of $900 million for intercity passenger rail.  Included in this total is $100 million for a matching grant program that will enable State and local governments to direct capital investment towards their top rail priorities.

Our “safety first” priority includes ensuring the safe and dependable transport of hazardous materials throughout the transportation network.  The President’s budget request would increase funding for pipeline safety programs to over $93 million by funding eight new inspectors to increase oversight of poor performing pipeline operators and increasing state pipeline safety grants by $11.3 million.

We are also requesting $174 million to support a fleet of 60 vessels in the Maritime Security Program to assure the viability of a U.S.-flag merchant marine capable of maintaining a role in international commercial shipping and of meeting the sealift needs of the Department of Defense.  

Finally, the President’s budget includes $17.6 million to support the first year of a $165 million, 10-year asset renewal program for the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.  After 50 years of continuous U.S. Seaway operations, this Federally-owned and operated infrastructure is approaching the end of its original “design” life.  Coordinated large scale capital reinvestment is now required to assure continuous, safe and efficient flow of maritime commerce.   

The President’s FY 2009 budget builds on the exciting things we are doing at the Department of Transportation to help America move forward on a new course – a course that delivers high levels of safety, takes advantage of modern technology and financing mechanisms, and mitigates congestion with efficient and reliable transportation systems.

 Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.  I look forward to working with Congress and the transportation community to ensure that America continues to have the best transportation system in the world.

# # #

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE MARY E. PETERS
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE

FEBRUARY 6, 2008

            Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe and Members of the Committee, I appreciate your courtesy in allowing me to testify this morning.

            Let me begin by saying, over the last 20 months, the Policy and Revenue Commission met on numerous occasions and engaged in wide ranging discussions to address the Nation’s current and future transportation needs.  I believe this time has been well spent, and I value and appreciate the contributions by all of my fellow Commissioners.  Although I fundamentally disagree with a number of central elements of the Commission’s Report, that disagreement in no way detracts from my respect for my colleagues on the Commission.  They are to be commended for their hard work and dedication.

            This week, the Administration released its Fiscal Year 2009 budget, which funds the final year of the $286.4 billion SAFETEA-LU authorization.  It’s clear that we are crawling across the finish line, with the Highway Trust Fund 's short term future unclear and its long term future in serious jeopardy.  This highlights the significant limitations in our current policies and it demands a new direction.  It is shortsighted to continue reliance on an excise tax increasingly battered by such factors as increased fuel efficiency, higher air quality standards, and fluctuating foreign oil prices.

            Given the severity of our transportation challenges and the effect on our economy and quality of life, it is imperative that we strive to reach a bipartisan consensus on the nature of these challenges.  While we all may not be able to reach complete agreement on the appropriate solutions to our surface transportation problems, we must come together and agree on a common definition of the problem, recognizing that fundamental change is required.      

            I have spent many years working in this field, and I have concluded that the central problem in transportation is not how much we pay for infrastructure, but how we go about paying for it.  Our current transportation policies provide the wrong incentives and signals to both users and owners of the system.  In fact, I believe that the chronic revenue shortfalls we face are more a symptom of the problems than the cause.  

            Americans overwhelmingly oppose gasoline tax increases because real world experience tells them they are ineffective.  Over the past 25 years, despite substantial increases in Federal, State, and local transportation spending -- much of it from fuel taxes -- we have witnessed a rapid growth in highway congestion.  In the last 25 years, highway funding has increased 100%, yet congestion over the same period has increased 300%.  This systemic failure is impacting our families, our businesses, and our environment.   

            Americans have become increasingly disgruntled about the declining performance of their transportation systems, but they are also unwilling to support transportation-related tax increases.  Some in the transportation field argue that we have simply failed to communicate the importance of transportation to the average American.  To me and various other observers, this split represents a collapse in public confidence in traditional approaches.  Public opinion surveys confirm this view.  A recently released survey out of Washington State found that voters preferred high speed variable tolling to gas tax increases by 77 to17 percent.   This survey is consistent with a number of others  conducted across the  United States that have found deteriorating support for gas taxes and a growing support for direct charges. 

            I agree with those who call for greater Federal leadership, as the Commission Report does.  I do not concede, however, that Federal leadership simply implies substantially greater Federal spending and dramatically higher fuel taxes.  In fact, it is far more critical that the Federal government establish clear policies, providing appropriate incentives and allocating resources more efficiently than it is for substantial increases in total Federal spending.  It is essential that we on the Federal level work together and demonstrate this type of leadership.

            I truly believe that there has never been a more exciting time in the history of surface transportation.  We are at a point where meaningful change is not only conceivable, but actually being implemented in various parts of the United States.  In the past three years, scores of localities from every corner of the country have approached the Department seeking assistance with the development of innovative financing and operational strategies.  In just the past 18 months, the majority of large U.S. cities have submitted proposals to DOT to reduce congestion by integrating technology, transit and variable tolling.  

            A major reform movement is now underway at the State and local level, and in order to ensure that the pace and scale of this movement increases, Federal transportation programs should be re-focused on two basic objectives.  First, we should reward, not constrain, State and local leaders who are willing to stand up, acknowledge the limitations of our current policies and pursue fundamentally different strategies to financing and managing their transportation systems.  The Federal government should be a partner, not an obstacle.  Second, the Federal government’s investment strategy should be completely re-written to emphasize the interstate system and other truly nationally significant priorities--including the escalating urban congestion that is choking our metropolitan areas--based on clear, quantitative parameters, not politically contrived ones.  

            Congress has before it a tremendous opportunity to reverse the substantial performance declines in the Nation’s surface transportation infrastructure to the benefit of the hundreds of millions of Americans that depend on that infrastructure every day.  In fact, Congressional recognition of the changing nature of our challenges should be the cornerstone of any reform effort.  This will require us to be candid about our current circumstances, put aside special interest considerations and come to grips with the unsustainability of our current path. 

            Again, I thank this Committee for allowing me to testify and I look forward to working with you to address America's transportation challenges.

STATEMENT OF

RAMESH K. PUNWANI,
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

ON

THE FAA’S FY 2009 BUDGET,

FEBRUARY 7, 2008.

Good morning, Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri and Members of the Subcommittee.

As this is my first appearance before the Subcommittee, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce myself.  After working in the private sector in the aviation and travel fields for several decades, I joined the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) four years ago as the agency’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO).  My job is to manage the agency’s budget, accounting, cost control and reduction efforts, as well as our financial programs and policies.  On behalf of our Acting Administrator, Bobby Sturgell, and the other members of our senior management team, I would like to emphasize our commitment to you, and ultimately to the American public, to deliver a safe, efficient, and accessible aviation system.  We have pushed hard to manage more effectively, rein in costs, and better respond to our customers.  The FY 2009 budget request moves FAA further along that road, toward a more streamlined and efficient organization that the taxpayers deserve. 

With me today is my colleague, Gene Juba, Senior Vice President for Finance, from our Air Traffic Organization (ATO). Gene is also from the aviation industry and is here to assist me in addressing some of your programmatic questions.

Today I would like to first briefly address a pressing budget issue for the current fiscal year and then provide an overview of our FY 2009 budget request and how it meets FAA’s strategic goals.

FY 2008 Agency Funding

As you are aware, the recently enacted Continuing Appropriations Act extended the authority to make expenditures from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) only until February 29, 2008.  Of the $14.9 billion appropriated for FAA this fiscal year, approximately $12.6 billion (or 84%) of our FY 2008 budget is funded from the AATF, while the remaining $2.3 billion (or 16%) is supported from the General Fund.  All of FAA’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP), Facilities and Equipment (F&E), and Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) accounts are funded by law solely from the Trust Fund.  Without an extension of the Trust Fund expenditure authorities, FAA will be unable to obligate funds after February 29^th from the Trust Fund, including the uncommitted balance.  This will have immediate consequences.  Most notably, our airports, facilities and equipment and research personnel (approximately 4,000 employees) will be sent home because they can only be paid from the Trust Fund.  FAA will not be able to provide funding on our major contracts, including ADS-B, STARS, ERAM and WAAS*, which are the foundational programs for both our existing air traffic control system and the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). 

Essential functions will be maintained as long as possible but certain safety and capacity enhancing projects and programs will be deferred and our remaining personnel, who are funded by the General Fund portion of the Operations account, would also be sent home after funding provided by the General Fund has been fully obligated—most likely in early June. 

Secondly, the Consolidated Appropriations Act only provided a temporary extension until February 29^th of the authority to collect of most of the aviation related excise taxes that provide approximately 95% of the Trust Fund’s revenue.  The uncommitted balance in the Trust Fund (approximately $1.5 billion, as of the end of FY 2007), which could only be tapped if Trust Fund expenditure authority is extended, is insufficient to sustain FAA operations beyond a few months and a lapse in the collection of excise taxes could very quickly begin to impact FAA’s operations, forcing a shut down of our remaining 43,000 employees funded through the Operations appropriations account. 

Third, as you know, contract authority for AIP expired on September 30, 2007, however Congress, in a series of continuing resolutions, provided temporary and limited AIP contract authority through December 31, 2007.  Without contract authority, we are not able to make any new AIP grants.  We do have authority to honor payment requests for existing grants provided in prior years, and we will continue to pay those to the extent possible.  However, as a result of the lack of new contract authority, we cannot distribute funds to 62 airport sponsors that have requested approximately $265 million in FY 2008 to upgrade their runway safety areas, or make almost $250 million in discretionary letter of intent (LOI) payments.  Based on a quick survey, we have learned that eleven airports with pending LOIs are facing immediate impacts, some as soon as February and March, with several taking out short-term loans to bridge financial requirements, and others at risk for incurring heavy financial penalties on financing.  Unfortunately, with the gap in AIP contract authority for FY 2008, we are near the point of losing a portion of this construction season and airport sponsors will have to defer critical safety and capacity projects.

Mr. Chairman, it is in the best interest of aviation safety and efficiency that these current year fiscal concerns be addressed and we are hopeful that Congress will resolve this before the end of the month.  We remain ready to work with you and other Members to enact a full-fledged reauthorization proposal that is consistent with the goals of the Administration.

FY 2009 Budget

Turning now to the next fiscal year, our FY 2009 Budget request of $14.643 billion provides funding to support all critical priorities of the FAA.  As always, safety is FAA’s primary concern and our budget request, sixty-seven percent of which is dedicated to our safety mission, reflects that commitment.  (See attached chart showing our budget request in terms of agency goals).  This request includes $688 million for key research and technologies to enable the transition to NextGen, as well as funding to meet our hiring goals for our air traffic controller and safety inspection workforces--areas we know that this Committee is most interested in.  I want to point out to the Committee that over the past five years, we have improved our financial management performance in ways that enable us to better use the funding Congress provides for execution of our vital safety and infrastructure programs.  Financial management accomplishments include improving the discipline with which programs and contracts are first approved, improving the tracking and monitoring of approved programs, and reducing our overhead costs so that more of the taxpayer dollars are spent on a safe, efficient and accessible aviation system. 

The 2009 budget request assumes congressional passage of the President’s reauthorization proposal for FAA programs and revenue streams starting in 2010.  We firmly believe that comprehensive reform is necessary.  The FY 2009 budget once again provides the framework for the Administration’s Next Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act (H.R. 1356), a proposal that will make flying more convenient for millions of travelers.  As air traffic is expected to nearly triple by 2025, our aviation system requires a more reliable and dynamic source of revenue to fund the modern technology required to manage this expanded capacity.  Our proposal replaces the decades-old system of collecting ticket taxes with a stable, cost-based funding program.  Based on a combination of user-fees, taxes and general funds, it creates a stronger correlation between what users pay to what it costs the FAA to provide them with air traffic control and other services.  The incentives our plan puts in place will make the system more efficient and more responsive to the needs of the aviation community.  FAA will continue to work with this Committee and others in Congress as well as our aviation stakeholders toward a successful reauthorization that is consistent with our key principles for a comprehensive cost-based funding structure that ensures that costs and revenues are better aligned, that all stakeholders are treated fairly and that our aviation system is ready for the congestion and environmental challenges of the future.  We continue to believe that these principles will provide us with the clearest path toward implementation of NextGen and with it, the avoidance of mounting congestion delays.

For FY 2009, we have proposed a new account structure that aligns FAA’s budget accounts with its lines of business.  We believe an account structure based upon agency functions makes sense both in terms of how we operate now as well as under our proposed new financing reforms.  For ease of understanding this approach, we have attached a “crosswalk” chart showing a comparison of our request with the current account structure.

Safety and Operations

The FY 2009 request is $2.052 billion for Safety and Operations, including $1.2 billion for Aviation Safety, $14 million for Commercial Space Transportation, and $851 million for Staff Offices.  Most of the funds requested support the agency’s activities to maintain and increase aviation safety and efficiency.  Our Aviation Safety (AVS) organization accounts for $1.187 billion of the request, to meet its mission of promoting aviation safety in the interest of the American public by regulating and overseeing the civil aviation industry.  AVS consists of eight distinct organizational elements employing approximately 7,000 personnel.  These employees are responsible for the oversight of the ATO, certification, production approval and continued airworthiness of aircraft, as well as certification of pilots, mechanics and other safety related positions.  The agency recognizes that this Subcommittee is particularly interested in our efforts regarding aviation safety inspector staffing.  Funding for AVS in FY 2009 maintains recent staffing gains to our aviation safety workforce, providing for 4,110 safety inspectors and requests an additional 30 safety staff positions for Air Traffic oversight.  In anticipation of future staff retirements, FAA is aggressively hiring and training safety personnel to enhance oversight, surveillance and certification activities.

I should also note that the $14 million Commercial Space Transportation request includes $270 thousand for 4 additional safety personnel needed to assess the human space flight aspects of the safety evaluations of commercial space license and permit applications.  In addition, $851 million is requested for FAA staff offices, including the CFO and finance, human resources, information systems, international policy, civil rights, and legal offices.

Air Traffic Organization

The FY 2009 Budget Request for the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) is $9.670 billion, of which approximately $7 billion is for ATO operating expenses.  We recognize that this Subcommittee is also very interested in our efforts regarding controller staffing.  As with the safety inspector workforce, the FAA is aggressively hiring and training controllers to ensure the right number of controllers are in place at the right time to address the now well-documented retirement “bubble”.  As you know, the FAA began anticipating today’s air traffic controller retirement wave several years ago, issuing a comprehensive plan that we update annually.   

In anticipation that more than 60 percent of the controller workforce will become eligible to retire over the next 10 years, the FAA plans to hire more than 16,000 controllers over that period.  In fiscal year 2007, the FAA hired 1,815 controllers and ended the year with 14,874 controllers on board – 67 more controllers than our workforce plan target of 14,807.  This year, we have robust hiring goals with a year-end target of more than 15,000 controllers on board.  Our FY 2009 budget includes funding to hire a net increase of 306 new controllers, a level consistent with the targets being developed for our updated staffing plan to be published next month.  The agency is also offering a variety of incentives to recruit and retain controllers, including recruitment and relocation bonuses and repayment of student loans.

The ATO continues to see cost savings from Flight Service Station (FSS) contract, which was initiated two years ago.  We anticipate savings of over $1.7 billion over the ten years of the contract.  Our network of automated flight service stations, which provide weather guidance and other assistance to the pilots of small airplanes, was reduced from 58 to 18 in the fourth quarter of FY 2007.  The current set of flight service stations comprises 15 previously existing facilities and 3 new ones built by Lockheed Martin.  The contract not only saves money, it also commits the vendor to modernize and improve the flight services we provide to general aviation pilots.  These savings result directly in a reduction of the budget request.

NextGen and Capital Needs

Our FY 2009 budget request will provide $688 million--a nearly $500 million increase from 2008--in support for the comprehensive transformation of our air traffic control system known as NextGen that is already underway.  This Committee has held numerous hearings on our transformation and modernization efforts and is well acquainted with the ongoing management efforts to coordinate this tremendous undertaking.  As you know, in the past year, key NextGen defining documents have matured.  Last summer, the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) released public versions of the Enterprise Architecture and Concept of Operations.  In July, the initial baseline of the NextGen Integrated Work Plan was completed.  The work plan lays out the progression from the present to the future, with activities and responsible agencies identified.  As envisioned, the work plan would guide the formulation of future budgets within partner agencies.

The FY 2009 NextGen budget represents strong collaboration between JPDO and the new OEP—formerly the Operational Evolution Plan, and now the Operational Evolution Partnership-- to define and estimate the budgetary requirements for FY 2009.  That collaboration will provide oversight and track progress to ensure that NextGen objectives are achieved.  This NextGen investment portfolio includes programs and activities deemed “transformational,” i.e., those that will truly move toward the next generation system.  The FY 2009 portfolio consists of $631 million in ATO Capital Programs, $57 million in Research, Engineering & Development, and $704 thousand in Safety & Operations, for a total of $688 million.  This funding level includes $19.5 million to directly support the JPDO:  $5 million from ATO Capital and $14.5 million from R,E&D.  This represents a significant investment in NextGen programs and reflects the Administration’s commitment to comprehensively address capacity constraints in the aviation system.

Grants in Aid for Airports (AIP)

The FAA’s reforms for the AIP program contained in our reauthorization proposal are designed to strategically target federal dollars to the airports where they will have the most impact.  While large and medium hub airports have a greater ability to finance their own capital requirements with revenue from passenger facility charges and their own rates and charges, small primary and general aviation airports rely more heavily on AIP funding to help meet their capital needs and complete critical projects.  We have proposed changes to the Federal funding program which will stabilize and enhance these funding sources for airports.  With our proposed programmatic changes, including the increase in the passenger facility charges, the $2.75 billion proposed in our budget will be sufficient to finance airports’ capital needs and meet national system safety and capacity objectives.  Our request also includes $15 million for the Airport Cooperative Research program and $19 million for airport technology research.

Research, Engineering, and Development (R,E&D)

The FY 2009 request for R,E&D is $171 million.  The request includes $91 million for continued research on aviation safety issues.  The remaining research funding is to address congestion and environmental issues, including $42 million for new NextGen Projects such as Self Separation, Weather in the Cockpit, Air-Ground Integration, and the Continuous Low Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) Technologies program.  $14.5 million is provided for the Joint Planning and Development Office to continue defining and facilitating the transition to NextGen.  An additional $5 million in support for JPDO is contained in the ATO capital request, related specifically to the work on demonstration projects.

Increased Safety

Due to the combined efforts of government and the aviation community, we are fortunate to be living in the safest period in aviation history and the FAA is committed to making it safer still.  In the past 10 years, the commercial fatal accident rate has dropped 57%, to a rolling three-year average of 0.022 fatal accidents per 100,000 departures as of the end of FY 2007.  In the past three years, the United States averaged approximately two fatal accidents per year and 28 deaths per year; while any loss of life is tragic, this statistic is remarkable, given that there are roughly 12 million commercial aircraft flights per year.  General aviation accidents are down.  Air traffic control errors are occurring at a rate lower than in the previous two years. 

Approximately 67% of our budget request, or $9.855 billion, supports the FAA’s safety mission.  Our safety goals for FY 2009 are to reduce U.S. commercial airline fatalities per 100 million people (including crew) on board to fewer than 8.31 (an improvement of over 6% from our FY 2008 goal) and to reduce the rate of general aviation fatal accidents.  To achieve these goals, FAA’s FY 2009 budget request includes $9.9 billion to operate and maintain the air traffic control system, inspect aircraft, certify new equipment, ensure the safety of flight procedures, oversee the safety of commercial space transportation, and develop a replacement air traffic data and telecommunications system. 

The request includes an increase of $11.3 million to hire and train sufficient air traffic controllers to achieve our hiring targets noted earlier in my statement.  It also includes $800,000 for 30 new positions to support continued development of the Air Traffic Oversight office, which was formed in FY 2004 to improve the delivery of air traffic services, and maintains the staffing gains to our aviation safety workforce during FY 2007-2008.  Total aviation safety staffing will reach 7,069 by the end of FY 2009.

The FAA will continue working to reduce the precursors of aircraft accidents, runway incursions and operational errors.  This Subcommittee will be examining our efforts in this latter area at a hearing scheduled for next week so we will be brief here.  Suffice it to say that the FAA will continue to concentrate on outreach, awareness, technology, and improved procedures and infrastructure. 

International Leadership

Our FY 2009 request includes $63.1 million to expand the FAA’s international leadership role and to help improve safety.  FAA will expand training and technical assistance programs that help civil aviation authorities meet international standards, as well as promoting seamless global operations.  The FAA will continue to promote increased external funding for training and technical assistance programs that help civil aviation authorities around the world meet international safety standards.  FAA will also continue to work with its international partners and the International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) to harmonize global technological standards, and to expand the use of global satellite navigation systems.

Environmental Stewardship

Our FY 2009 budget request includes $276.8 million, of which $227 million is requested from the AIP program, to ensure that the number of people in the United States who are exposed to significant aircraft noise levels—a Day/Night Average Sound Level of 65 decibels or more—continues to decline.  FAA will continue to address the environmental impacts of airport projects, primarily aircraft noise.  FAA will also provide expertise and funding to assist in abating the impacts of aircraft noise in neighborhoods surrounding airports by purchasing land, relocating persons and businesses, soundproofing residential homes or buildings used for educational and medical purposes, purchasing noise barriers and monitors, and researching new noise prediction and abatement models and new technologies.  We estimate that 20,000 people will see a reduction in aircraft noise from these efforts.  The FY 2009 request includes $10 million in new RE&D funding for the Continuous Low Emissions, Energy and Noise Technologies program to accelerate the introduction of quieter and cleaner technology in commercial fleets, and to initiate a NextGen Environmental Management System. 

Security

As you know, responsibility for the security of the aviation system now rests with the Department of Homeland Security.  Therefore most of the $218.6 million requested in our budget for next year focuses on enhancing the security of the FAA’s own personnel, facilities, and communications.  FAA ensures the operability of the national airspace through the facilities, equipment and personnel of the air traffic control system, which is essential to the rapid recovery of transportation services in the event of a national crisis.  Additionally, the budget request includes funding to continue upgrading and accrediting facilities, procure and implement additional security systems, and upgrade our command and control communications equipment.

Performance and Accountability

Finally, as Chief Financial Officer of the FAA, I would like to highlight some of the ways we are better executing and managing the budget resources that Congress provides.  At FAA, “acting more like a business” isn’t just a slogan.  We are actively engaging in a comprehensive pay-for-performance program, consolidating operations, improving internal financial management, and increasing benefits to our customers.  Our beacon will always be our mission – to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.  Our bottom line is results for our stakeholders, including the taxpayer and traveling public.

As I noted at the outset of my testimony, the transformation over the past five years has been steady and sure, as we have embraced the vision of the President’s Management Agenda (PMA) and its aggressive strategy to improve management throughout the federal government.  The evolution of the PMA complements the strategic vision of our Flight Plan.  It contains a number of management performance measures, including a cost control performance measure requiring each organization to contribute cost efficiencies that save money or avoid costs for the agency.  Through the Flight Plan and PMA, we have made dramatic gains in human capital, competitive sourcing and consolidations, financial performance, and, ultimately, accountability to the bottom line of our customers.

We are continuing to make every effort to control our operating costs.  Personnel reform for the agency, granted in 1998, is starting to bear fruit, with conversion from the traditional GS-Schedule pay system to pay for performance.  Accountability for results is systemic throughout our organization, with 90 percent of our employees on the pay-for-performance system, including our executives.  Flight Plan performance targets must be achieved before annual pay raises are calculated.  Executives and managers have a good deal of discretion in rewarding high-performing employees, and incentives are present to ensure quality work and innovation are rewarded.  Executives are also eligible for short-term incentive increases when specific performance thresholds are met or exceeded.  This conversion is allowing the agency to flatten pay bands and tie performance incentives to pay increases.

We know that labor costs drive a significant share of our budget, and we have been working to slow the rate of growth in labor costs, as evidenced by the FAA’s recent contract with our controller workforce, and such steps as back-filling positions with new employees at lower pay grades when possible.  We are also increasing workforce productivity through cutting multiple levels of management and better management and oversight of our worker’s compensation caseload.

I have already mentioned our ATO’s success with competitively sourcing its flight service station function.  They have also successfully consolidated administrative and staff support functions from nine service areas to three, allowing for better service while saving an estimated $360 to $460 million over the next 10 years.  FAA has also taken steps to consolidate and improve our real property management and information technology (IT) investments. 

In a concerted effort to control costs and make smarter capital investment choices, several years ago the FAA created a capital investment team to review financial and performance data.  The team provides an early warning for potential problems as well as help to develop corrective actions.  So far, these business case reviews have identified $460 million in lifecycle savings by restructuring/terminating 10 programs, 6 of them major.  To date, over 165 projects were reviewed in various stages of acquisition, capital formulation, and business case development.

Finally, the Strategic Sourcing for the Acquisition of Various Equipment and Supplies (SAVES) initiative is an ambitious effort begun in FY 2006 to implement best practices from the private sector in the procurement of administrative supplies, equipment, and IT hardware.  It is expected to achieve $9 million in savings annually.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, with Congress’ help we can avoid disruptions to our programs this fiscal year with an extension beyond March 1^st of critical authorities and taxes that support our programs.  Time is of the essence.  We also stand ready to work with this Committee and others in Congress to enact an aviation authorization bill this year that will provide the necessary cost-based financing and programmatic reforms that will enable us to move to the NextGen transportation system.  Our FY 2009 request provides strong support for our staff hiring goals, safety and capital programs and NextGen activities.  Given the vital role aviation plays in the Nation’s economy and the need to prepare for the future, our funding request for FY 2009 is designed to support America’s growing demand for aviation-related services.

That concludes my testimony.  My colleague and I would be happy to answer any questions you and Members of the Subcommittee may have.

STATEMENT OF

JEFFREY F. PANIATI,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
U.S. SENATE

HEARING ON

SAVING LIVES ON OUR NATION’S HIGHWAYS

JULY 17, 2008

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) role in saving lives on our Nation’s highways.   

            The safety of the traveling public is the United States Department of Transportation’s (DOT) most important priority.  As you well know, improving highway safety requires a comprehensive, multi-agency and multi-disciplinary effort.  Through the combined efforts of the entire highway safety community, our highways are safer than ever before, but with over 42,000 highway fatalities in 2006, much work remains. 

FHWA takes seriously its charge to ensure the safety, reliability, and efficiency of America's highways, roads, and bridges.  We are committed to continued work with you, the safety community, and our sister agencies, including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), to reduce highway fatalities and injuries. 

            The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:  A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Public Law 109-59) significantly increased the national policy emphasis on safety and the resources available to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries on all public roads.  The Act also introduced new programs and provided greater flexibility to meet the challenges of improving safety.  Using the tools SAFETEA-LU provided, and working together, we are making progress and seeing results.  

Reducing Highway Fatalities

In 2006, the last year for which we have final data, the number of people who lost their lives on the Nation’s roadways fell by 868 deaths from 2005, equating to a fatality rate of 1.41 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT)—the lowest rate ever recorded.  The number of fatalities in 2006 represents the largest drop in total deaths in 15 years. 

Passenger car occupant fatalities declined for the fourth year in a row to 30,521, the lowest annual total since 1993.  The fatality rate per 100 million VMT for passenger vehicles also reached an all time low of 1.10 in 2006.  In addition, the number of people suffering incapacitating injuries as a result of motor vehicle crashes in 2006 was 26 percent lower than in 2000. 

            At 1.94 fatal crashes per 100 million large truck VMT, in 2006, the large truck fatal crash rate reached its lowest point since the Department began tracking these figures 30 years ago.  From 2005 to 2006, large truck fatalities decreased from 5,240 to 4,995, representing a 4.7 percent reduction. 

            Although final data are not yet available for 2007 and 2008, preliminary State data show promising signs of a further reduction in fatalities in 2007 (compared to 2006) and more significant declines in fatalities in at least 35 States in 2008 (compared to 2007).

            Despite the gains we have made in improving highway safety, 42,642 individuals still lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes in 2006.  Motorcycle rider fatalities continued their nine-year increase, reaching 4,810 in 2006—an increase of 5 percent over the 2005 number and a 127 percent increase since 1997.  Motorcycle rider fatalities now account for 11.3 percent of total motor vehicle fatalities, exceeding the number of pedestrian fatalities for the first time since DOT began collecting fatal motor vehicle crash data in 1975.  In 2006, 17,602 people were killed in the U.S. in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes—about 40 percent of total motor vehicle fatalities.  This proportion has remained relatively unchanged since 2000.

            In 2005, according to the Centers for Disease Control, once again motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death for Americans for every age 2 through 34.  And, the associated financial costs are staggering—over $230 billion each year.

            These numbers are not acceptable.  That is why the DOT considers safety its top priority and remains committed to the goal of reducing highway fatalities to a rate of 1.0 per 100 million VMT by 2011.  To most effectively align program and policy actions needed to meet key challenges, the Department has established four fatality sub-measures—passenger vehicles, nonoccupants (e.g., pedestrians and bicyclists), motorcycle riders, and large-truck and bus-related fatalities—which represent the breadth of all highway users.  The purpose of this approach is to examine more closely the fatality rates of the various segments of highway users and develop targeted strategies to combat trends within these segments of highway users. 

            Additionally, data from the NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) highlight crash trends and areas where major fatalities are still occurring.  We use this information to assist States in maximizing returns from safety investments.  Some of the greatest gains in reducing fatality rates in the short term lie with influencing driver behavior.  Over 90 percent of crashes are caused by human factors, such as speeding, lack of seat belt use, and alcohol impairment.  The DOT has implemented a number of driver behavior programs, including the primary safety belt use law incentive grant program, the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures program, and others. 

FHWA’s Role in Highway Safety

Comprehensive Safety Programs and Partnerships

            FHWA’s Office of Safety is responsible for leading FHWA in the development and delivery of a comprehensive range of programs that will enable the Department to meet its 1.0 safety goal.  FHWA actively pursues improved highway safety through a collaborative, multi-faceted approach that addresses the “4Es of safety”—engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services.  Using a data-driven approach, we work with other safety agencies at DOT and with our safety partners to develop and deliver technologies, processes, and policies that direct resources to activities that can yield the highest highway safety gains.  While FHWA concentrates primarily on infrastructure-oriented solutions, we recognize that highway deaths are often the result of some failure of the driver or vehicle, in addition to the roadway, so we work closely with both NHTSA and FMCSA on intermodal activities such as the DOT Speed Management Strategic Initiative.  We not only work at the national level to provide leadership for highway safety, we work directly with roadway owners and operators at all levels to deliver safety-related programs and funding that yield benefits that include improvements in system conditions and operations.  As part of this comprehensive approach, FHWA safety funding is targeted at improving the safety of roadway designs and operations, removing roadway hazards, and advancing high-quality safety data collection and analysis systems in collaboration with others.  

FHWA’s efforts with our partners to improve data quality are extensive.  FHWA takes an active role, in conjunction with our partners at NHTSA and FMCSA, in the USDOT Traffic Records Coordinating Committee, an intermodal team that provides coordinated Federal leadership to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of integrated roadway, traffic and safety data collection and analysis.  FHWA also supports NHTSA in the implementation of the State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement Grant program, authorized under SAFETEA-LU, which provides grants to States to improve their data systems.  FHWA has developed, in consultation with FMCSA and NHTSA, a Crash Data Improvement Program that gives States a detailed analysis of their crash data systems, training on how to make improvements, and individualized attention from data systems experts.  This program has been piloted in two locations, and we are in the process of expanding it to other locations. 

Perhaps one of the most difficult and wide reaching issues related to usable data is the availability of roadway information.  Many States have, via their asset management systems, good data on engineering features, but in many cases, these systems cover only State-owned roadways and do not include some safety-critical elements.  FHWA is working on the Model Minimum Inventory of Roadway Elements (MMIRE) program to more clearly define a set of standardized elements that will be beneficial in performing analyses to make program and project decisions.  In 2006, preliminary MMIRE elements were vetted with traffic records professionals and “cross-walked” with safety analysis tools available or under development.  FHWA has initiated a number of activities to move the concept forward, including establishing an executive steering committee, developing outreach materials on MMIRE for State and local partners, and initiating a contract to begin development of the MMIRE.  Through these efforts and others, FHWA will continue to emphasize the need for data-driven decision-making. 

SAFETEA-LU Implementation

            Since the enactment of SAFETEA-LU in 2005, FHWA has worked aggressively to make the authorized funds available, and issue guidance and regulations as necessary to carry out programmatic modifications in SAFETEA-LU.    

      Highway Safety Improvement Program.  SAFETEA-LU authorized the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) as a new core Federal-aid formula program and more than doubled the amount of highway safety funding for the States by authorizing $5.1 billion over 4 years.  The HSIP emphasizes a results-based, data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety.  The program provides States with flexibility to use funds for safety projects on all public roads and publicly-owned pedestrian and bicycle paths, and to focus State efforts on implementation of State Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs).  FHWA assisted States in developing their SHSPs.  We helped States convene the stakeholders necessary to solve highway safety problems and worked to analyze data to identify critical emphasis areas individualized for each State’s safety needs.  We are happy to report that every State now has an SHSP.   We are also pleased to report that 32 States identified data and data system improvements as a priority in their SHSPs and that, in 2007, 40 States used HSIP funds for data improvements.  FHWA's emphasis on a collaborative approach to improving safety is especially critical in the HSIP, where each State’s SHSP addresses all "4Es" of safety described above.  FHWA will continue to assist States with their SHSP implementation and safety planning so that safety funds will be used where they yield the greatest safety improvement. 

            We have cooperated with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on its ongoing review of the HSIP and look forward to the issuance of its report on the program.

            Safe Routes to Schools.  SAFETEA-LU also authorized $612 million for a new Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program to:  enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school; make walking and bicycling to school safe and more appealing; and facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of projects that will improve safety, and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools.  Working with States, FHWA moved quickly to implement this new program.  Each State has appointed a SRTS coordinator as required by SAFETEA-LU, and States are well underway in awarding grants and implementing projects.  We also have fulfilled another SAFETEA-LU program requirement, creating a national clearinghouse for SRTS.  The National Center for Safe Routes to School located at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill assists communities and States in developing successful SRTS programs and strategies.  The National Center offers training, technical assistance, case studies of successful programs, and information on how to start and sustain a SRTS program.  The Clearinghouse makes information available on its website at http://www.saferoutesinfo.org.  At Congress’ direction, we have also established and convened a Federal Advisory Committee that has studied and developed a strategy for advancing SRTS programs nationwide.  The report on the Committee’s findings will be transmitted to Congress soon.

High Risk Rural Roads.  Rural two-lane, two-way road fatality rates are significantly higher than the fatality rates on the Interstate.  The fatality rate for rural crashes is more than twice the fatality rate for urban crashes.  The High Risk Rural Road portion of the HSIP sets aside $90 million each year to address safety considerations and develop countermeasures to reduce these higher rural road fatalities.  On February 29, 2008, Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters announced a new national strategy that will concentrate resources and technology on reducing deaths on the Nation’s rural roads.  The Rural Safety Initiative, led by DOT Deputy Secretary Thomas J. Barrett, is a comprehensive effort among several agencies within DOT that will help States and communities develop strategies to eliminate the risks drivers face on rural roads.  Approximately $287 million in existing and new funding is available to support the Rural Safety Initiative.  This new initiative highlights available resources and solutions and addresses 5 key goals:  safer drivers, better roads, smarter roads, better-trained emergency responders, and improved outreach and partnerships.  For example, the Rural Safety Innovation Program, a component of the Rural Safety Initiative, is offering $15 million to rural communities across the country to apply and evaluate innovative safety solutions. 

            Work Zone Safety.  SAFETEA-LU included an increased emphasis on work zone safety.  Fatalities in highway work zones currently number over 1,000 annually.  Four out of 5 of these deaths are motorists.  Under the Work Zone Safety Grants program, FHWA has awarded grants to nonprofit and not-for-profit organizations to provide training to prevent and reduce work zone injuries and fatalities.  SAFETEA-LU authorized $5 million for each fiscal year of the program, starting in 2006.  The grants may be used for construction worker training to prevent injuries and fatalities; development of guidelines to prevent work zone injuries and fatalities; and training for State and local governments, transportation agencies, and other groups implementing these guidelines.  SAFETEA-LU also authorized $1 million annually for a national nonprofit foundation to operate the National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse.  The Texas Transportation Institute is operating this clearinghouse under contract with the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA).  The Clearinghouse provides a wide variety of information related to improvement of roadway work zone safety available at http://www.workzonesafety.org/.   

            In addition, FHWA has been working with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to advance and promote accelerated bridge construction technology, which enables bridge systems to be built offsite and then installed, in part or the whole bridge, at the job site over a weekend or overnight.  The technology reduces the exposure time in the work zone and significantly reduces traffic disruption. 

            Bridge Safety Efforts.  Highways, by definition, include bridges.  The Highway Bridge Program supports State and local efforts to improve conditions, and thus safety, of highway bridges.  The expansion of the Highway Bridge Program’s scope under SAFETEA-LU is recognition of the importance of preserving bridges that are in better condition, as well as replacing and rehabilitating bridges that have suffered from deterioration.  Since its inception, the Highway Bridge Program has been successful in reducing bridge deficiencies.  As of December 2007, there were 116,025 bridges out of 599,319 inventoried nationwide that were on the National Highway System (NHS).  Of those, 25,780, or 22.2 percent, were considered deficient.  That represents a reduction of 4 percent from 1997, when 33,558 out of 128,432, or 26.1 percent, of NHS bridges inventoried were deficient. 

            Thousands of well-trained and dedicated bridge inspectors in the National Bridge Inspection Program work every day to ensure the safety of the nearly 600,000 existing bridges in the National Bridge Inventory.  Through these inspections, critical safety issues are identified and acted upon to protect the traveling public.  With an aging infrastructure and limited resources, it is vitally important to continuously monitor the condition of the Nation’s bridges and frequently assess the load-carrying capacity of those bridges that are showing signs of deterioration.     

Focused Approach to Safety 

            To reduce the number and rate of fatalities in traffic-related crashes, FHWA launched a performance-based approach to safety several years ago that better focuses our resources where the greatest opportunities to save lives exist.  To accelerate development and delivery of tools and technologies where they will make the biggest impact, we have focused resources on 4 areas where we see the greatest percentage of highway fatalities that are addressable by infrastructure-oriented solutions:  roadway departure crashes (58 percent of all highway deaths); intersection-related crashes (21 percent of all highway deaths); pedestrian crashes (11 percent of all highway deaths); and speeding-related crashes (32 percent of all highway deaths).  We maintain our focused approach to safety in the 4 critical areas in several ways, including:

• Providing technical assistance and training to States;
• Advancing the use of countermeasures such as shoulder and center-line rumble strips, cable median barriers, roundabouts and other operational improvements;
• Promoting the implementation of USLIMITS, a web-based expert advisory system to help States determine appropriate speed limits;
• Implementing PEDSAFE, an interactive system to diagnose pedestrian-related issues; and
• Supporting Roadway Safety Audits that bring together multi-disciplinary teams to review the safety performance of specific corridors or locations and develop countermeasures.

Safety Research, Technology and Innovation 

            Developing new technologies and tools through a strong research and development program in highway safety is a key component of FHWA’s strategy to reduce highway deaths and injuries.  FHWA conducts its own research and collaborates extensively with others who sponsor highway safety research and technology, including States and universities.  Numerous safety research and technology projects that contribute to our highway safety objectives are currently under development with a strategic focus on areas with the greatest fatalities, including roadway departure, intersections, pedestrians, and speeding.  Examples of our research and technology efforts include:

• Evaluating low cost safety improvements for State and local partners;
• Using advanced crash simulation and analysis to enhance the design of median cable barriers and edge-pavement dropoffs to make roadsides safer;
• Deploying SafetyAnalysis software to assist States in making cost-effective safety investment decisions;
• Working on Human Centered Systems to ensure that driver responses are considered in road design and in the development of new roadside safety technologies;

• Releasing targeted technical briefs on innovative intersection designs, such as the Diverging Diamond interchange, that enhance safety, alleviate congestion and reduce construction costs;
• With the US DOT Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office (ITS JPO), researching advanced vehicle-highway cooperative systems to avoid collisions at intersections; and
• Issuing an information report on the illumination of Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossings, to improve pedestrian safety.

            FHWA is also active, along with others throughout the safety community, in supporting the future Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2), established by Congress and managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB).  Along with NHTSA and FMCSA, we are excited about the potential impacts of an increased understanding of crash causation, including how driver performance is affected by roadway features and conditions.  We are providing input to TRB as it studies SHRP2 implementation needs, and we look forward to further collaboration on this topic.

Program Guidance and Implementation

            FHWA Division Offices work closely with State and local officials to assure that highly-effective systems, technologies, and processes are utilized when investing Federal dollars in highway safety countermeasures.  We develop and disseminate guidance on program expectations and information on “best practices” on a continuing basis.  Most recently, we provided information to States on high-priority safety countermeasures, which we encourage all States to consider as part of their regular project development and delivery.  In addition, we work closely with national associations representing States, localities, enforcement officials, safety advocates, and others to facilitate sharing of information and tools to maximize the value of all our safety programs.

Conclusion

Highway fatalities are a national tragedy, and FHWA is committed to reducing their numbers.  As we approach reauthorization, we look forward to continued work with this Committee, the States, and our partners in the transportation community to find solutions for the safety problems on our highways and develop methods to attain our safety goal.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.  I would be happy to answer questions.

STATEMENT OF

JEFFREY F. PANIATI,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HEARING ON

TRUCK WEIGHTS AND LENGTHS: ASSESSING THE IMPACTS OF EXISTING LAWS AND REGULATIONS

JULY 9, 2008

Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Federal regulation of commercial motor vehicle size and weight.    

We have a proud history at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and our most important chapter so far began with President Eisenhower’s grand vision to connect America in a way that moved people and goods from city to city and State to State in a safe, efficient, and reliable way.  Although construction of the Interstate System has been completed, we are not done yet.  President Eisenhower’s vision does not stop at concrete and guardrails--we continue to carry the responsibility for ensuring that the system provides safe, efficient, and reliable mobility for America.

As we all work together to provide that service to America, we must be sure to maintain our existing infrastructure and do all we can to ensure efficient freight movement.  Key to those goals are the commercial motor vehicle size and weight requirements.  FHWA is responsible for monitoring and enforcing Federal commercial motor vehicle size and weight limits--requirements that preserve the physical condition of the highway transportation system and the safety of its users.  Meeting the freight transportation needs of a growing economy in a safe and efficient manner is the challenge for all of us involved in this endeavor.

Federal involvement in commercial motor vehicle size and weight dates back to the enactment of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (Public Law 84-627), which authorized the Interstate System. That Act established weight limits to protect the Federal investment in the Interstate System from excessive damage caused by overweight commercial vehicles.  The 1956 law included a maximum width limit of 96 inches, a single-axle weight limit of 18,000 pounds, a tandem-axle weight limit of 32,000 pounds, and a gross vehicle weight (GVW) limit of 73,280 pounds.  These Interstate limits were established as a condition on the receipt of Federal-aid funds, and failure to implement or enforce the limits resulted in the withholding of Federal funds.  It is important to note, however, that the 1956 Act also included a grandfather clause allowing States to retain any higher axle and GVW limits they had already enacted, as well as their authority to continue issuing overweight permits under the conditions in effect that year. 

The Federal-Aid Highway Amendments of 1974, Public Law 93-643, became effective in 1975, increasing the Federal axle weight limits to the maximum allowed today—20,000 and 34,000 pounds for single- and tandem-axles, respectively.  This law also set the maximum GVW at 80,000, provided the vehicle complies with the Federal bridge formula, which sets maximum gross weight limits for groups of axles in accordance with the number and spacing of the axles.  These Federal limits were maximums only, and several States chose to retain their lower, pre-1975 Interstate limits.  The disruption to national uniformity created by these so-called “barrier States” prevented motor carriers from fully utilizing the new higher weight limits.

The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-424) addressed this situation by making the 1975 maximum weights also the minimums States must allow on the Interstate System.  This Act also expanded the Federal regulation of commercial vehicle size by requiring FHWA to designate a National Network of highways, including the Interstates, where States must allow commercial vehicles of certain dimensions and configurations to operate.  This Act preempted the States from enforcing laws and regulations that would impose on this National Network trailer length limits of less than 48 feet for truck tractor-semitrailer combinations, or less than 28 feet for truck tractor semitrailer-trailer combinations (doubles), or imposing an overall length limitation of less than 45 feet for buses.  States were prohibited from denying reasonable access for these vehicle combinations to terminals; facilities for food, fuel, repairs and rest; and points of loading and unloading for household good carriers.  The 1982 Act also established a maximum/minimum width limitation of 102 inches, grandfathered certain trailer dimensions in actual and lawful use in 1982, and authorized FHWA to adopt regulations to accommodate specialized equipment, such as automobile transporters.  These requirements remain in effect today.

Size and weight changes in the 1982 Act were accompanied by changes in Federal truck taxes to better reflect the cost responsibility of heavy trucks.  In addition to the tax on diesel fuel, there is a 12 percent excise tax on new truck and trailer sales, a tax on truck tires, and a heavy vehicle use tax that varies according to truck weight.  Except for the diesel fuel tax, rates for other truck taxes generally have not changed since 1982.  The last Federal highway cost allocation study, completed in 2000, showed that many of the heaviest trucks pay considerably less than their highway cost responsibility.  While not recommending immediate changes in truck tax rates, that study indicated that if truck size and weights were changed in the future, changes in Federal truck taxes should also be evaluated to match appropriately the pavement and bridge wear caused by the heavier trucks.

Even though the maximum GVW for commercial motor vehicles on the Interstate System was set at 80,000 pounds in 1975, a number of States interpreted their grandfathered permit authority broadly and allowed the operation of increasingly heavy trucks that came to be known as longer combination vehicles (LCVs).  An LCV is any combination of a truck-tractor and two or more trailers or semitrailers operating on the Interstate System with a GVW greater than 80,000 pounds.  In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)(Public Law 102-240) froze the weight of LCVs on the Interstate and the length and configuration of longer double- and triple-trailer combinations on the National Network.  Referred to as the “ISTEA freeze,” those limits are now listed in Federal size and weight regulations (23 CFR Part 658, Appendix C).

            The current, statutorily established, truck length and width restrictions apply on the National Network.  This network covers approximately 209,000 miles of roadway and includes the Interstate System and certain other principal arterial roadways designated by the States and incorporated in Federal regulation.  Weight restrictions apply on the Interstate System, which encompasses approximately 47,000 miles of limited access, divided highways that span the Nation.  Beyond the Interstate System, States may set their own weight limits.

FHWA has responsibility for monitoring and enforcing State compliance with Federal standards.  States incorporate Federal size and weight requirements into State law and enforce those laws with State personnel.  States must provide FHWA annual certifications of size and weight enforcement signed by the Governor or his or her designee.  The certifications include an enforcement plan and updated information on size and weight enforcement activities.  Failure to certify or to enforce adequately all Federal size and weight requirements can result in a ten percent reduction of certain Federal-aid funds to the State in the subsequent fiscal year.

If a State enacts laws or regulations establishing weight limits for commercial motor vehicles that violate the Federal weight standards, the State is subject to loss of its entire National Highway System (NHS) apportionment.  In addition, if a State violates the Federal size requirements, the State is subject to a civil action for injunctive relief in Federal district court.  To date, FHWA has not permanently withheld funds from any State, though it has sought and obtained injunctive relief in rare cases.  Over the years, we have initiated sanctions, but States have returned to compliance, and further action was not required.  The severity of the potential sanctions appears to incentivize State compliance with the Federal laws.    

In both the certification and the enforcement plan submittals, States notify FHWA of changes proposed in their truck size and weight laws and regulations, which we use to determine whether the proposed changes would conflict with Federal law.  The information provided in the certifications also addresses the State administration and issuance of special permits for overweight or oversize loads. 

There are times when heavy loads need to move on the Interstate system, including loads carrying generators for power supply in emergencies, windmill turbines and blades for generating power, or manufactured housing.  Federal law allows all States to issue permits for oversize or overweight loads that are non-divisible.  Federal regulations define as non-divisible any load or vehicle exceeding applicable length or weight limits which, if separated into smaller loads or vehicles, would compromise its intended use, destroy its value, or require more than eight work hours to dismantle.  Some States also have authority to issue permits for overweight divisible loads, pursuant to their 1956 grandfather rights.  FHWA monitors State permitting programs for consistency with Federal permitting privileges. 

The smooth and secure flow of freight is vital to our nation's economy and to our global competitiveness.  Keeping in mind our responsibility to provide a safe, efficient and reliable transportation network to the country, FHWA is engaged in a number of research and program activities related to truck size and weight, a few of which I will highlight for you today.  

FHWA is collaborating with one of our sister agencies, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), on roadside automated enforcement tools that will support the weighing and inspecting of trucks and enable driver and company validation at highway speeds.  These tools will enable more comprehensive coverage of the system and more efficient monitoring and enforcement of size and weight requirements across the entire network.

For example, our current estimates indicate that less than one percent of the trucks weighed are issued citations for being illegally overweight.  This means that too many trucks at legal weight are having their trips needlessly interrupted.  These smart roadside screening tools will identify trucks that exceed pre-established enforcement thresholds, enabling more efficient and effective enforcement of size and weight requirements.  This effort can improve productivity without compromising safety or infrastructure preservation. 

As part of the Department’s Congestion Initiative, we are looking at the possibility of improving freight movement through truck-only lanes, by which we mean lanes physically separated from passenger vehicles.  We are exploring this idea with partners and stakeholders.  Together, we are conducting a benefit-cost analysis to determine the economic feasibility of truck-only lanes.  Part of this discussion has included the operational parameters that would warrant the construction of such lanes, including the percentage of trucks in the traffic stream, the average annual daily truck traffic on the roadway, and the proximity of large freight generators.  We are also considering whether changes to size and weight restrictions would be necessary to make these truck-only lanes economically viable.  To date, we have held two forums with the trucking industry and the safety advocates to solicit their viewpoints and recommendations.  We will continue to engage shippers, the trucking industry, safety advocates and the public in future discussions of this option.  Additionally, the Corridors of the Future Program is giving us the chance to develop multi-State, corridor-wide strategies to create congestion relief.  One such corridor is I-70 where the participants will be studying the feasibility of dedicated truck lanes.

As noted earlier, States have substantial authority to control the conditions under which oversize or overweight loads may move, especially nondivisible loads.  Divergent State permitting practices sometimes present a challenge to the transport of oversize loads across State boundaries, as is the case for trucks carrying manufactured housing in several Northeastern States.  FHWA has facilitated discussions among industry executives and State permit officials to reach a consensus on more efficient, coordinated movements of oversize loads in this region.  With the support of the Northeast Association of State Transportation Officials (NASTO), we are moving toward a pilot for harmonized permitting activities in 2009.  FHWA will use this initiative as a template for solving complex, multi-state truck mobility issues that arise in other areas of the country.  We also are working closely with other regional organizations of AASHTO, like the Western Association of State Transportation Officials (WASHTO), and the Southern Association of State Transportation Officials (SASHTO) on this issue of streamlining the permit process and seeking interoperability between States.

FHWA and its sister agencies in DOT are focused not only on infrastructure preservation but on keeping America moving by improving the safety, security, productivity and mobility of the Nation’s highway transportation system.  With these objectives in mind, we look forward to continued work with you, the public, and stakeholders.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.  I would be happy to answer questions.

STATEMENT OF

HANK KRAKOWSKI,
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

ON

RUNWAY SAFETY: AN UPDATE,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION,

SEPTEMBER 25, 2008.

Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me here today to update you on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) efforts to improve runway safety.  Since I was last here in February of this year, I am happy to report that we have made some excellent progress in this arena, and I am confident that we will continue on this path.

Current Status of Runway Incursions

At the FAA, safety is our first priority, and as I have mentioned to this Committee before, a commitment to safety is part of my DNA.  While 2007 was the safest year yet for aviation in our Nation’s history, when we last testified in February 2008, we had experienced one of the worst quarters for serious runway incursions – 10 between October 2007 and December 2007, and two more in January 2008.  Based on our response to this unacceptable situation, as of September 15, 2008, we are on track to equal or slightly improve on the safest year on record. 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have issued recommendations on areas where the FAA could make improvements in runway safety.  In November, the NTSB announced that improving runway safety will remain on the Board’s “Most Wanted” list of improvements for 2008.  FAA believes that the technologies we are now testing and deploying will be responsive to address the problem of runway incursions.  Also, the GAO reported on how the FAA has taken steps to address runway and ramp safety.  We appreciate the work that the GAO and NTSB have done, and we welcome their analysis and feedback.  While runway safety has received more public attention in recent months, it is important to remember that for many years, the FAA has actively invested in programs and technology development to address this serious aviation safety issue.

As a reminder to the Members, let me explain the categories of runway incursions.  Category A incursions are the most serious incidents, in which a collision was narrowly avoided.  Category B incursions are incidents in which separation decreases, and there is a significant potential for a collision, which may result in a time critical corrective or evasive response to avoid a collision.  Category C incidents are characterized by ample time and/or distance to avoid a collision, and Category D is an incident which meets the definition of runway incursion, such as the incorrect presence of single vehicle/person/aircraft on the protected area of a surface designated for the take-off or landing of an aircraft, but with no immediate safety consequences.

Beginning with Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, the FAA adopted the definition of runway incursion as used by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the United Nations organization charged with promoting safety and security in international aviation.  This new definition, which FAA helped develop for ICAO, is much more inclusive and counts every single mistake made on the airport operational surface, even if another vehicle, pedestrian or aircraft is not involved.  As a result, we will have more data to analyze trends and improve safety.  

By redefining what a runway incursion is, the total number of what we now report as a runway incursion is expected to triple.  This explains the spike in Category C incidents beginning in October 2007.  Category C now includes data that we used to classify as Category C and D incursions.  The new Category D accounts for incursions which we previously tracked as surface incidents.  However, Category A and B incidents, the most serious incursions, continue to be defined and tracked as before.

An aggressive and effective FAA runway safety program has reduced the number of serious runway incursions by 55 percent since 2001.  In FY 2007, we saw a 25 percent reduction in serious runway incursions from 2006.  There were 24 serious runway incursions (Category A and B incursions) during 61 million aircraft operations, a significant reduction from the 31 incursions in FY 2006, and the 53 incursions in FY 2001.  We have only had 23 serious runway incursions as of September 15^th of FY 2008, as compared to 24 last year.

What is significant about this number, however, is the quarterly comparison.  During the first quarter of FY 2008, there were 10 Category A and B runway incursions, as compared to two in first quarter FY 2007.  During the second quarter of FY 2008, there were five Category A and B runway incursions, as compared to five in second quarter FY 2007.  In third quarter FY 2008, there have been four Category A and B runway incursions, while third quarter FY 2007 saw 10 of these.  And, as we approach the end of the fiscal year, there have been four (with a possible fifth pending) Category A and B runway incursions, in comparison to the seven in final quarter of FY 2007.  As you can see, the trend is towards continued improvement every quarter. 

But while we have made improvements with the most serious of the runway incursions, overall runway incursions increased in FY 2007 to 370, up from 330 in FY 2006, and they continued to increase in 2008.  If we use the prior definition for comparison purposes only, we have already had 388 runway incursions so far this year.  To understand the impact of the new runway incursion definition, last year there would have been 891 runway incursions and so far this year we have had 953.   So far, seven of the 23 serious incursions involved a commercial airline and there was one collision involving a general aviation airplane and a grass mowing tractor.

As you know, the FAA investigates every reported runway incursion and assigns a reason for the incursion.  We send a team to the facility to review the airport information; radar data and voice tapes, if they are available; and interview the individuals involved, often controllers, pilots and/or vehicle operators.  In 2008 we are seeing about 65 percent pilot error, 25 percent vehicle/pedestrian errors, and 10 percent controller errors.  The shift between Operational Errors (OEs) and Vehicle or Pedestrian Deviations (VPDs) is a result of the new definition.  Previously, Pilot Deviations (PDs) or VPDs that did not involve a loss of separation were not counted as runway incursions.  Under the new definition, they are, which is causing the increase in our count.  By contrast, this decreases the percentage of OEs in our database.

Update on Technology Installations

As I reported to you in February, we are working to install runway surveillance technology that improves controller situational awareness on the airport movement area at our nation’s busiest airports.  The FAA has spent over $404 million to date to acquire and deploy the next generation of ground surveillance technology, known as Airport Surface Detection Equipment – Model X or ASDE-X for short.  The FAA will commit more than $806 million over a 30-year period on equipment, installation, operations and maintenance of the 35 operational and three support ASDE-X systems.  I am pleased to report that we are rolling out ASDE-X even faster than we had originally anticipated.    Seventeen towers are now using ASDE-X operationally and 16 additional towers are scheduled to be operational by the end of October 2010, with the remaining two scheduled to be operational by Spring 2011. 

Runway Status Lights, which were developed as a result of the NTSB’s “Most Wanted” list of safety improvements, are a fully-automated system that integrates airport lighting equipment with surveillance systems to provide a visual signal to pilots and vehicle operators when it is unsafe to enter/cross/or begin takeoff roll on a runway.  Airport surveillance sensor inputs are processed through light control logic that command in-pavement lights to illuminate red when there is traffic on or approaching the runway.  The contract is scheduled to be awarded this fall. 

There are two types of Runway Status Lights currently being tested:  Runway Entrance Lights and Takeoff Hold Lights.  Runway Entrance Lights provide signals to aircraft crossing or entering a runway from an intersecting taxiway.  Takeoff Hold Lights provide a signal to aircraft in position for takeoff that another aircraft is crossing or entering the runway.  These systems are scheduled to be installed at 22 of the nation’s busiest airports by FY 2011.  We recently announced accelerated installation and testing at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and Boston Logan International Airport (BOS).  BOS will be testing a third type of light system designed to warn pilots of potential conflicts on intersecting runways.  We have also initiated Memoranda of Understanding at 18 airports, which contain the agreements for the light configuration and construction and installation timetables.

We are also testing a system at the Long Beach Airport, known as the Final Approach Runway Occupancy Signal (FAROS), which will further enhance runway safety.  This system is similar to Runway Status Lights in that it provides immediate information to pilots on approach to land that the runway is occupied or otherwise unsafe for landing.  The FAROS system determines the occupancy of the runway by detecting aircraft or vehicles on the runway surface.  If a monitored area on the runway is occupied, FAROS activates a signal to alert the pilot that it is potentially unsafe to land.  We are developing a plan for implementing FAROS at larger airports, and expect to begin operational trials at Dallas-Fort Worth later this fall. 

The FAA is also evaluating low-cost ground surveillance systems for potential application at airports that are currently not programmed to receive ASDE-X technology.  At present, we are evaluating two such systems at Spokane, Washington and we believe that basic ground surveillance capability, increasing controller situational awareness, can be provided at a cost less than the more sophisticated ASDE-X technology that is needed at larger, more complex airports. 

Since I last appeared before you in February, we have taken the process a step further.  Based on what we have learned at Spokane, we have issued a request for proposal inviting industry offers of candidate low-cost ground surveillance products for FAA consideration.  Our intent is to install these selected low-cost products at various airports as part of a pilot project to determine which products satisfy minimum operational and safety requirements.  We will use the results of the pilot project to determine the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of implementing a low-cost surveillance product, and if deemed feasible, develop a plan for acquisition and deployment.  Several industry offers are currently under review and we expect to complete our evaluations in the near future. 

The FAA recognizes that technologies that increase situational awareness and provide direct alerting to aircrews offer great potential to address some of the human factors that contribute to runway incursions.  Our decision to deploy runway status lights is just one example of our increased emphasis on direct aircrew alerting.  We are also aware that industry has stepped up to the plate to offer avionic product solutions that may further enhance aircrew situational awareness and thus increased runway safety.  To facilitate operational assessment of these solutions, the FAA recently announced a “Cooperative Agreement for Improving Runway Safety.”  Under this program, the FAA intends to enter into Funded Cooperative Agreements with users who agree to equip their aircraft with equipment which can display approved Airport Moving Maps or with equipment approved to provide aural situational awareness runway information to pilots.  The FAA will offer participants federal funds in an amount commensurate with the type of equipment proposed and the extent of the user’s installation and participation in the FAA’s operational evaluation program.  In exchange for the federal contribution, the users must agree to equip their airplanes within a specified period and participate in FAA tests detailed in a Test and Evaluation Master Plan.   The FAA is initially committing $2 million to this initiative.

Twenty of the busiest airports in America were identified for targeted Runway Safety Action Team visits based on a combination of a history of runway incursions, wrong runway events and wrong runway risk factors.  Last year, these 20 airports accounted for 33 percent (8 of 24) of the serious runway incursions.  So far this year that number is 17 percent (4 of 23).

The Runway Safety Action Team visits involved surface analysis meetings with air traffic control, both management and controllers, safety inspectors from FAA and the airports, and airport managers and operators.  Just through the interaction and discussion among these groups, action plans to mitigate identified risks were finalized.  These meetings identified over 100 short term fixes that could be accomplished within 60 days, including new or improved signage, improved marking, driver training, and other actions.  This proves that “common sense” opportunities for curbing runway incursions exist. 

Not all measures to improve runway safety will involve fielding expensive equipment and new systems.  Quick and relatively inexpensive solutions include improving airfield markings, adding targeted training for controllers and aircrews, and fine-tuning air traffic procedures.  Incorporating the lessons learned through the meetings with the initial 20 airports, FAA identified a second tier of 22 airports and we completed the focused surface analysis at these 22 airports in July 2008.

FAA has also continued to make progress in improving Runway Safety Areas (RSAs).  RSAs enhance safety in the event of an undershoot, overrun, or excursion from the side of the runway.  In FY 2000, FAA started an ambitious program to accelerate RSA improvements for commercial service runways that do not meet standards.  The FAA developed a long-term completion plan that will ensure that all practicable improvements are completed by 2015. 

When the RSA improvement initiative began in FY 2000 there were a total of 454 RSAs requiring improvement.  Since then, significant progress has been made and 68 percent of the RSA improvements have been completed.  By the end of 2010, 86 percent of RSA improvements will be completed, leaving only 59 to meet the 2015 goal.  Twenty-four airports have improved safety areas using Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS), a relatively recent technology of crushable material placed at the end of a runway, and designed to absorb the forward momentum of an aircraft.  EMAS offers a significant RSA improvement where the land off the ends of the runway is constrained and a conventional RSA is not practicable.  To date, four aircraft overruns have been caught by EMAS applications with a 100 percent success rate.

As part of the Administrator’s “Call to Action” last year, the FAA required all airports with enplanements of 1.5 million or more (75 airports) to enhance airport markings by June 30, 2008, and urged airports to provide recurrent training to contractors and service providers that drive on aircraft movement areas.  All 75 airports completed the marking upgrades by June 2008 and most did so well in advance of the deadline.  More than half of the commercial service airports not currently required to upgrade their markings have voluntarily agreed to do so.  In addition, roughly 85 percent of all commercial service airports currently have or plan to provide recurrent training for all who have access to the aircraft movement area.  Our Airports office at the FAA has completed rulemaking requiring the enhanced markings at all Part 139 certificated airports by 2009 for medium and 2010 for small airports.

Human Factors

While the FAA has made great strides in advancing and implementing technologies to reduce runway incursions, technology is only as good as the people who use it.  To this end, we are concentrating a great deal of effort into the human factors elements of runway incursions.  As I reported to you in February, the FAA is seeking input from NATCA on revamping policies for issuing taxi clearances.  The requirement to issue explicit taxi instructions was implemented in May 2008 and the requirement for an aircraft to cross all intervening runways prior to receiving a takeoff clearance was implemented in August 2008.  Both of these requirements address NTSB recommendations on runway safety. 

We are also working with NATCA to implement a voluntary reporting system for air traffic controllers similar to the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) with airlines, pilots, airport operators and the FAA.  This program is know as the Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP) and marks the beginning of a demonstration program to encourage voluntary safety reports from the ATO controllers.  The program offers individual controllers an opportunity to provide valuable inputs to improve safety.

Voluntary safety reporting has proven very successful as sources of additional information that can be used to target safety risks that may not have been identified through existing audits, inspections, and automated tools.  In my role at United, I was responsible for four ASAP programs for pilots, dispatchers, mechanics and flight attendants.  Because of this work, I am convinced that information from a voluntary reporting system will help us to spot trends and prevent future runway incursions.  We have implemented voluntary reporting in our Chicago area facilities and receive valuable safety information daily regarding events and incidents that previously might have gone unreported.  We will continue to expand this program without delay to additional facilities.

Recently the FAA conducted our first-ever Fatigue Symposium.  This symposium brought together leading fatigue scientists; representatives of the airline industry and its employee groups, representatives of the NTSB, and representatives of the FAA and its employee groups.  At the symposium, fatigue scientists and industry experts presented the most current scientific and industry-relevant fatigue information to a broad audience representing both flight operations and shift-work operations, including air traffic control, maintenance, ramp operations, and aircraft dispatch.  The intent of the conference was to present information that would lead to improved understanding of fatigue in aviation and increased awareness of fatigue mitigation strategies, which the aviation industry can voluntarily adopt.  By all accounts that conference was extremely successful and resulted in a great deal of information, ideas, and strategies.

Following up on that, we are preparing the proceedings of the Fatigue Symposium for posting on the FAA homepage, so that all operators, not just those in attendance, may access the wealth of information the conference produced.  We have already applied some of the information, ideas and strategies in its evaluation of air carrier-specific proposals for ultra long range (ULR) operations (operations with a flight or flights in excess of 16 hours).  The FAA is observing the effectiveness of the fatigue mitigation strategies employed in ULR operations, for any "lessons learned" that may be applied to other, non-ULR operations.  We continue to examine the information from the Fatigue Symposium to determine what next steps we may be able to take.

The FAA is committed to designing an end-to-end system that seeks to eliminate runway incursions while accommodating human error.  In February, I mentioned to you that the FAA plans on creating a standing Runway Council Working Group to look at the data and address root causes, and continue to involve all who play a part in runway safety.  The Runway Council is scheduled to begin this fall, and will have dedicated human factors expertise to address this aspect of runway incursions. 

Conclusion

The FAA continues to seek ways to improve awareness, training, and technologies and we look forward to our collaboration with airlines, airports, air traffic control and pilot unions, and aerospace manufacturers to curb runway incursions.  I want to thank personally all of the stakeholders that have been working with the FAA on our efforts, including the Office of the Inspector General, the GAO, NATCA, the National Business Aviation Association, the Airline Pilots Association, the airlines, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, and many others.  We could not do what we do without their incredibly valuable input.

We also value the Committee’s interest in this arena, and welcome your counsel and assistance in our efforts to reduce runway incursions and improve safety in our nation’s aviation system.  Your oversight has kept us on track to continue to improve safety, on the ground and in the air, and I appreciate that.

This concludes my remarks, and I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

STATEMENT OF

HANK KRAKOWSKI,
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
AND THE HONORABLE MICHAEL W. REYNOLDS,
ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AVIATION AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

BEFORE THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY,

ON

THE OUTLOOK FOR SUMMER AIR TRAVEL: ADDRESSING CONGESTION AND DELAY.

JULY 15, 2008.

Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Hutchison, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me here to testify about aviation congestion and delays. With me today is Michael Reynolds, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs from the Department of Transportation (DOT). With the summer travel season upon us, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the DOT have a number of efforts underway to address aviation congestion and delays.

State of the Industry

In order to frame the issues properly, we must first take a look at the state of the aviation industry today. Record oil prices, a slowing economy, and increased competition are just a few factors that have created a number of significant challenges for airlines – challenges that certainly will change the face of the aviation industry in the years to come.

To meet these challenges, many carriers are raising fares, streamlining operations, and reducing service. With a few notable exceptions -- JFK, Denver and San Francisco, for example -- air traffic is down. General aviation operations are also down, due to fuel and insurance costs, further de-stressing the system. System-wide, FAA data shows the number of flights have decreased just over 2 percent, comparing May 2008 to May 2007.

While airlines are announcing reductions in service, and air traffic overall is down, it is likely that the busiest and most congested airports, particularly in the New York/New Jersey region, will not see a significant reduction. Even if they do see a downturn in the short run, history tells us that the aviation industry is very cyclical and that service will eventually return to – and exceed – the record levels we saw last year. Of the current delay minutes, 32.9 percent were at the three largest airports in the New York area (Newark Liberty International, LaGuardia Airport, and John F. Kennedy International Airport), as compared to 33.4 percent from last year. Approximately one-third of the nation’s flights and one-sixth of the world’s flights either start or traverse the airspace that supports the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia (NY/NJ/PHL) region.

In 2007, the aviation industry recorded the second worst year for delays since 1995; 27 percent of flights were delayed or cancelled in 2007. Both the frequency and the severity of ground delays were unprecedented. The costs of delays are huge – the Senate Joint Economic Committee estimates that last year flight delays alone cost passengers, airlines, and the U.S. economy over $40 billion. Additionally, the Travel Industry Association estimates that air travelers avoided over 41 million trips last year – leading to lost revenues and taxes of over $26 billion.

Even if carriers reduce flights this summer enough to reduce congestion, we still must do something to fix the problems that caused last summer’s horrible delays. We continue to work towards developing and providing solutions for all of the users of the nation’s airspace system.

As we frame the problem, we should note that we are living in the safest period in aviation history and we are constantly striving to make it safer still. In the past 10 years, the commercial fatal accident rate has dropped 57 percent. General aviation accidents are down. Safety is and will always be the primary goal of the FAA. Nothing we do to address congestion and delays will compromise the FAA’s safety mandate.

Summer 2008

A snapshot of the system comparing May 2008 to May 2007 for the 35 Operational Evolution Partnership airports is telling. As you know, we had far more severe weather during May 2008 than we had in May 2007, particularly in the Midwest. Previously, this would have caused major delays throughout the NAS, and had the FAA done nothing, we would have seen thousands of delayed and stranded passengers all over the country. Instead, our projected data estimates that the average minutes of delay for all flights decreased slightly (by almost 1 percent), while the number of flights with more than one hour of delay decreased by 8 percent. Although the data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics has not been finalized, we are expecting to see that cancellations for May 2008 have decreased approximately 8 percent and on-time arrivals increased nearly 1 percent over May of last year.

According to FAA data, bad weather causes 70 percent of all delays. The situation is worse during the summer, unlike winter storms, which take time to develop and move slowly, summer storms can form quickly, stretch for hundreds of miles and travel rapidly over large portions of the country, grounding flights and sending chain reaction delays throughout the NAS. While we cannot control the weather, we can control how we manage the delays. With new dispersal headings, the use of Adaptive Airspace Flow Programs (detailed below), new westbound departure routes out of New York, and other improvements, we are dealing more effectively with delays, using people, procedures, and technology.

In 1998, the FAA initiated Collaborative Decision Making (CDM), which represented a change in how the FAA communicates with the airlines in order to reduce delays. Prior to CDM, airlines were hesitant to share certain information for competitive reasons. Airlines now share schedule information with the FAA’s Command Center in Herndon, VA, including flight delays, cancellations and newly created flights. The Command Center uses this information to monitor airport arrival demand and take steps to reduce delays caused by heavy traffic and severe weather. Daily teleconferences are held every two hours between FAA air traffic managers, the airlines, and general aviation users, to discuss problems affecting capacity in the system and decide the most efficient, and collaborative solution as these situations arise.

For 2008, the FAA is implementing a number of new procedures and tools to enhance this system and to help manage and reduce congestion, outlined below:

Western Atlantic Route System
This initiative will increase capacity along the East Coast over the Atlantic this summer by reducing lateral separation from 90 miles to 50 miles for aircraft with avionics that provide an appropriate level of accuracy. The area includes parts of Miami and New York high altitude airspace, as well as the San Juan Center Radar Approach Control airspace.

In the past, lateral separation in oceanic airspace has been set at 90 miles between aircraft to maintain safe separation. This initiative takes advantage of more precise aircraft position technology to allow for more Atlantic routes, 20 more transition route fixes and ultimately more access to the available airspace. The procedures became fully operational on June 5, 2008.

New Playbook Routes
Playbook routes are pre-coordinated routes that are developed to route aircraft around convective weather. New playbook routes will be in place this summer to provide alternate route options during periods of severe weather. Nineteen new playbook routes will be available, including four Virginia Capes Area (VACAPES) routes designed for use in military airspace when it is available.

Integrated Collaborative Rerouting Tool
This is a new automated tool that depicts constrained airspace to airlines and other users of the NAS. This alleviates the need for the FAA to implement required reroutes, which may be less favorable to the users. It gives the airlines scheduling options and a more efficient utilization of the available airspace. The tool will allow pilots to provide early intent of their preferred routing around constrained areas, such as storms-affected areas.

Adaptive Airspace Flow Programs (AFPs)

The Airspace Flow Program was deployed in June 2006 and enables the FAA to manage adjustments to changing weather patterns. This is crucial during the summer convective weather season when storms grow rapidly and move across large swaths of the country. Before the FAA developed the technology to implement AFPs, the FAA's primary tool was a ground delay programs to prevent aircraft from taking off if they were headed for a delayed airport from any direction. Ground delay programs remain valuable under appropriate circumstances, but sometimes have the unintended consequence of delaying flights that would otherwise not encounter severe weather.

Last summer from May 2 through August 30, 2007 a total of 58 AFPs were used. Use of these AFPs provided approximately $68 million in savings for the airlines. AFPs, which focus on particular areas in the sky where severe weather is expected, generally are a more equitable and efficient way of handling flights during severe weather.

The Adaptive Airspace Flow Program is an enhancement to the original program. This summer, the FAA can adjust the parameters of an AFP based on changing weather intensity, providing a more effective way to manage traffic during severe summer storms that will minimize delays.

Using AFPs, the FAA is able to target only those flights that are expected to encounter severe weather. The targeted flights are issued an Expect Departure Clearance Time (EDCT), giving the airlines the option to accept a delayed, but predictable departure time, to take a longer route to fly around the weather or to make alternate plans.

Adaptive Compression
This program, launched in March 2007, automatically identifies unused arrival slots at airports affected by AFP or ground delays and moves other flights into those slots. This means that maximum arrival rates will be maintained, easing congestion and delays. Adaptive Compression saved $27 million for the airlines and 1.1 million delay minutes for the airlines and the flying public in its first year of operation.

Expanding Capacity

Expanding capacity in the overall NAS is always our preference, both on land and in the air. Airport capacity is critical. Along with our partners in the airport community, we have achieved significant progress in increasing capacity and we intend to continue to support this with our ongoing airport improvement programs. A brief overview of the status of recent airport projects as well as projects in the planning stages might be helpful.

The 35 airports included in the Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP) account for about 75 percent of all passenger enplanements. Much of the delay in air traffic can be traced to inadequate “throughput” (measured as arrival and departure rates) at these airports. Airfield construction (new runways, runway extensions, new taxiways, end around perimeter taxiways, and airfield reconfigurations) is the most effective method of increasing throughput. Consequently, constructing new and/or extending runways, taxiways, and airfield reconfiguration are solution sets of the OEP’s Airport Development Domain.

Arrival and departure rates at the nation’s busiest airports are constrained by the limited number of runways that can be in active use simultaneously. The addition of new and extended runways or airfield reconfigurations will expand airport throughput at the target airports, and possibly for other airports in the same metropolitan area. In most cases the airfield projects are sufficient to keep pace with forecasted demand. Since FY 2000, 14 of the 35 OEP airports have opened 15 airfield projects (including 13 new runways providing 20 miles of new runway pavement, 1 end around taxiway, and 1 airfield reconfiguration). The projects have provided these airports with the potential to accommodate 1.6 million more annual operations and decrease average delay per operation at these airports by about 5 minutes, and reduce the potential for runway incursions. The complete listing of airfield projects included in the OEP is shown in the table below.

The total cost of these projects is $5.6 billion with approximately $1.9 billion in Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funding. End around taxiways provide another means to decrease delays at a busy airport by providing an alternative to having aircraft cross an active runway. With the opening of the end around taxiway at Atlanta in April 2007 about 612 runway crossings per day were eliminated at the busiest airport in the U.S.

Currently, seven OEP airports have airfield projects (3 new runways, 1 airfield reconfiguration, 1 runway extension, and 2 taxiways) under construction. The projects will be commissioned through 2012 and will provide these airports with the potential to accommodate about 400,000 more annual operations, decrease average delay per operation by almost 2 minutes, and significantly reducing runway crossings. The cost of the 7 airfield projects, listed below, is approximately $3.9 billion with about $1.2 billion in AIP funding.

There are also ten other projects (3 airfield reconfigurations, 3 runway extensions, & 4 new runways) are in the planning or environmental stage at OEP airports through 2017.

In addition, four communities (Chicago, Las Vegas, Atlanta and San Francisco) have planning or environmental studies underway to examine how their metropolitan area will accommodate future demand for aviation.

AIP program planning will continue to reflect a special emphasis on increasing capacity and improving the airport arrival efficiency rate.

Controller Staffing

We know that controller staffing and how it affects delays are issues of concern to this Committee. The FAA is its workforce, and we consider controller staffing issues to be of the utmost importance to maintaining the safest aviation system in the world. To deal with the long-predicted retirement eligibility of today’s generation of controllers, the FAA began a large-scale recruitment and selection process to rebuild the controller workforce. By 1992, the controller workforce was once again fully staffed. However, the realities were that, because of the concentrated, post-strike period of hiring, the FAA would have to once again begin a major recruitment effort as these controllers began to age out of the system. The vast numbers of controllers hired in the 1980s were long-predicted to retire once they reached retirement eligibility after 25 years of service.

To deal with this, the FAA initially developed a 10-year controller workforce staffing plan in 2004, which we refine each year. In 2007, the anticipated retirement wave of controllers began, and we project that retirements will continue to hit record numbers in 2008 and 2009. Our strategic hiring plan takes into account both projected retirements as well as expected attrition in new hires. From 2008-2017, we plan to hire approximately 17,000 new air traffic controllers.

To achieve these ambitious goals, the FAA has been recruiting aggressively through a variety of traditional and non-traditional outlets. In an effort to diversify our workforce, we are actively recruiting more women and minorities, as well as disabled veterans. And, in October 2007, the FAA chose an additional nine colleges and universities to be part of the Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative (AT-CTI) program, which brings the number of schools currently in the program to 23. We plan to continue to offer the opportunity to other schools to apply to the program.

We have also been offering a recruitment bonus of up to $20,000 for qualified new hires and offering retention incentives to retirement-eligible controllers on a case-by-case basis. Retention bonuses are typically 25 percent of an individual’s salary with a cap of $25,000. Controllers may also be eligible for relocation and reassignment bonuses for certain key facilities. Thus far, 44 retention bonuses have been accepted, and another 26 are pending consideration.

Thus far, we have increased our controller workforce by a net gain of 256 in FY 2007, and we are on target to increase it an additional 256, to an end of year target of 15,130 for FY 2008. The President’s budget for FY 2009 calls for a further net increase of over 300 controllers. Given the current airline reductions and current staffing statistics, we believe our staffing goals and plans are on target.

NextGen

In addition to ensuring sufficient controller staffing, we need to put the right tools into our controllers’ hands. Our long-term plan to address congestion and delays is the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). We appreciate this Committee’s strong support for the NextGen effort. NextGen will transform the aviation system and how we control air traffic. We must be able to handle the demands of the future for aviation travel – projected to be one billion passengers by 2015 – particularly in areas (such as New York/New Jersey) where capacity cannot be expanded.

As you know, NextGen is a steady, deliberate, and highly collaborative undertaking, which focuses on leveraging our latest technologies, such as satellite-based navigation, surveillance and network-centric systems. It is designed to be flexible to take advantage of even newer and better technologies as they become available. We want to make sure that our air transportation system can accommodate innovations without becoming entrenched in technology that is new today but obsolete tomorrow.

The FAA is hard at work bringing new technology and techniques on-line to unsnarl air traffic delays, and we appreciate the funding Congress has appropriated for these purposes. In recognition of these critical enhancements, the President’s FY 2009 Budget Request would more than triple the investment in NextGen technology – providing $688 million for key research and technology to help meet the nation’s rapidly growing demand for air travel, including the transformation from radar-based to satellite-based air traffic systems.

The FAA will begin rolling out several elements of the NextGen system this summer. This rollout will include the national debut of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology, the cornerstone of NextGen. We are particularly proud that the ADS-B team, which includes the FAA, along with its industry, government, and university partners, recently won the Robert J. Collier Trophy, one of the most prestigious awards in aviation. The award is awarded annually by the National Aeronautic Association “for the greatest achievement in aeronautics or astronautics in America, with respect to improving the performance, efficiency, and safety of air or space vehicles, the value of which has been thoroughly demonstrated by actual use during the preceding year.” It recognizes the development team that worked for more than a decade to create the pioneering systems to improve efficiency and safety in the national airspace.

The FAA has chosen Miami as the key site for the installation and testing of Traffic Information Services – Broadcast (TIS-B) and Flight Information Services – Broadcast (FIS-B). These broadcast services are the transmission of weather and traffic information to the cockpit of properly equipped aircraft. In order to provide the services in roughly the southern half of the state, the contractor, ITT will install and test eleven ground stations in this area, including five at airports (Lakeland Linder Regional, Dade-Collier, Florida Keys Marathon Airport, Boca Raton Airport, and Sebastian Municipal).

The ITT installed equipment is currently undergoing a Service Acceptance Test (SAT) which began in May. In November 2008, the agency expects to commission (the FAA calls this an In-Service Decision or ISD) these broadcast services (TIS-B and FIS-B). Following the successful completion of ISD, the FAA can exercise an option in the ITT contract to deploy the services nationwide

The transition to ADS-B technology will allow the nation's air traffic control system to change from one that relies on radar technology to a system that uses precise location data from a global satellite network. Over the next few years, the FAA will also install and test ADS-B for use in Air Traffic Control Separation Services. The key sites for this initiative are Louisville, Philadelphia, the Gulf of Mexico, and Juneau. The FAA plans to commission the ADS-B services in September 2010 and complete a nationwide rollout by 2013.

NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign

As mentioned above, one-third of all domestic and one-sixth of all international air traffic pass through New York airspace. Improvements in this region have effects throughout the system. Likewise, a bad storm or other delays in this region cascades throughout the system. In order to address these issues, the FAA is in the process of implementing the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace Redesign.

The old, inefficient airspace routes and procedures pieced together over the past several decades were overdue to be reconfigured to make them more efficient and less complicated. In addition to more jet routes with increased and better access, the Airspace Redesign includes improved use of available runways, fanned headings for departures and parallel arrivals, and more flexibility to manage delays in severe weather. We project that under the Airspace Redesign, delays will be cut by 200,000 hours annually. This is the single greatest improvement to address congestion we see in the near future for the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area.

We also project that this will save $248 million annually in operating costs for airlines. Additionally, the increased flexibility during severe weather is projected to save another $37 million annually. Finally, the environmental advantages include reduced carbon dioxide emissions of a projected 430 million pounds per year, and the residents affected by aviation noise will be reduced by more than 600,000. These are impressive gains.

Reconfiguring the airspace will enable the FAA to take several direct actions to take advantage of improved aircraft performance and emerging ATC technologies. Leveraging these technologies, the FAA can implement new and modified ATC procedures, including dispersal headings, multiple departure gates and simplified arrival procedures by 2011. The FAA will also use these technologies to employ noise mitigation measures, such as use of continuous descent approaches (CDA), and raising arrival altitudes.

Implementation of the Airspace Redesign Project will be able to make use of procedures like Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP), which collectively result in improved safety, access, predictability, and operational efficiency, as well as reduced environmental impacts. RNAV operations remove the requirement for a direct link between aircraft navigation and a ground-based navigational aid (i.e. flying only from radar beacon to radar beacon), thereby allowing aircraft greater access to better routes and permitting flexibility of point-to-point operations. By using more precise routes for take-offs and landings, RNAV enables reductions in fuel burn and emissions and increases in efficiency.

RNP is RNAV with the addition of an onboard monitoring and alerting function. This onboard capability enhances the pilot’s situational awareness providing greater access to airports in challenging terrain. RNP takes advantage of an airplane’s onboard navigation capability to fly a more precise flight path into an airport. It increases access during marginal weather, thereby reducing diversions to alternate airports. While not all of these benefits may apply to every community affected by the Airspace Redesign Project, RNAV and RNP may prove useful in helping to reduce overall noise and aggregate emissions.

The Airspace Redesign Project is very large and complex and the implementation will take several years. There will be four stages of the implementation, distinguished by the degree of airspace realignment and facility changes required to support each of the overlying operational enhancements. Implementation is estimated to take at least five years, with each stage taking approximately 12-18 months to complete. The FAA is presently finalizing a detailed implementation plan that will cover all elements of this project's implementation and we anticipate completion of stage 1 later this year. We have also begun additional operation validation of some of the key elements of stage 2.

Additional DOT Efforts to Reduce Congestion:

 In addition to the capacity enhancements, operational improvements, and ongoing efforts in the NextGen arena that have already been discussed, the Department is constantly searching for new ways to reduce congestion and improve customer satisfaction.  Given the record delays last summer, in July 2007, Secretary Peters formed an internal New York Air Congestion Working Group and tasked them with developing an action plan to reduce congestion and delays at airports in the New York City region and improve customer satisfaction.  The working group developed a plan, which, among other things, included establishing a New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), holding scheduling reduction meetings, implementing operational improvements, and enhancing customer satisfaction.  ARC participants included, among others, the airlines and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Since forming the Working Group, the Department has taken a number of actions to reduce congestion and increase customer satisfaction, including:

• Completion by the end of this summer of 17 key operational improvements proposed by the ARC;
• Establishing an executive-level Director position at the FAA to head the New York Area Program Integration Office;
• Amending the Airports Rates and Charges Policy, allowing airports to manage congestion at the local level;
• Publishing a final rule on denied boarding compensation;
• Creating a Tarmac Delay Task Force;
• Publishing a final rule to enhance delay data reporting;
• Publishing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to enhance consumer protections, including tarmac delay contingency plans, requiring responses to consumer complaints, and requiring publication of consumer data; and
• Creating a chronically delayed flight enforcement regime to pursue unrealistic scheduling.

The Department has also set forth significant rulemaking proposals aimed directly at reducing congestion in the system.  As mentioned, one third of all U.S. air traffic passes through New York airspace.  This concentration of traffic has prompted the Department to take special action in the New York area.  Recently, the Department published notices of proposed rules intended to manage congestion and introduce competition at LaGuardia Airport (LaGuardia), John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), and Newark Liberty International Airport (Newark).  We believe these proposals will ultimately provide travelers with more reliable service while maintaining competition among the many carriers in a vibrant New York market. 

As you know, the three New York airports are all operating under a cap.  Caps solve the problem of congestion because they simply freeze capacity and stop additional flights from flooding the system.  Airlines are often enthusiastic in their support of caps at an airport they already serve.  When a cap is established, incumbent airlines are protected because they typically maintain their market share and the potential for new competition is diminished.  The incumbent airlines’ support for such a policy makes sense, because limited competition makes them more profitable and protects them from new entrants that might want to compete by offering lower fares.  This limitation on capacity and competition naturally leads to fare increases at an airport, because it creates a scarce commodity, and passengers pay a premium for that commodity. 

Unfortunately, straight caps without some mechanism to ensure an efficient allocation of scarce slot resources is economically inefficient and stifles competition – leading to reduced service and higher fares for consumers.  Granting slots without market-based mechanisms creates a system where incumbent airlines fight to maintain large shares of the airport traffic and to limit the ability of low-cost carriers to compete.  The 1996 DOT report Low Cost Airline Service Revolution details this anticompetitive culture at capped or dominated airports.  The report identifies slot hoarding as one of the key characteristics of such a culture.  Federal regulations require airlines to use their slots at least 80 percent of the time in order to retain possession of them.  However, by splitting up larger flights into smaller ones (“downgauging”) or by setting up a rotating schedule, airlines have unnecessarily taken up more slots than they would require to competitively serve their customers.  Slot hoarding prevents new entrants from taking available slots and increases airplane throughput without increasing passenger throughput, adding greatly to congestion.  The report maintains that the high fares charged at these dominated airports create incentives for an airline to use anticompetitive measures to discourage new entrants.

Using the historical backdrop of slots as a guide, we believe that integration of a market-based system into the proposal for slot caps is necessary to protect consumers and a competitive market.  Estimates from the DOT’s 1996 report valued savings from new entry competition at 35 percent for round-trip flights and 40 percent for one-way flights.  A case-specific study on the effect of Southwest Airlines noted that with the opening of just one route between Oakland International Airport and Ontario International Airport in Los Angeles, fares dropped 60 percent and traffic tripled, increasing both passenger throughput as well as savings for consumers.  Even nearby airports not directly offered service experienced a decrease in fare costs of up to one-third.  Southwest is just one example of low-cost carriers whose entry into the market drove down prices and increased passenger throughput at previously dominated airports.

This is why caps alone are not the best solution for improving travel options for passengers and why caps must be combined with some mechanism to preserve competitive market forces to benefit aviation consumers or the airlines. When we consider economic regulatory issues, the Department has a statutory obligation to place maximum reliance on competitive market forces and on actual and potential competition.  We know, however, that caps hinder the ability of air carriers to initiate or expand service at capacity constrained airports.  Therefore, when seeking a solution to the aviation congestion issues that we currently face in the New York area, the Department must act to both promote competition by permitting access to new entrants, and to recognize the long-term investments in airports made by existing carriers.

Keeping in mind the need to reduce congestion while simultaneously promoting competition, we have set forth proposals for the New York area airports that we believe would reduce congestion the smartest way—by using market incentives to assist in the efficient allocation of airspace.  Opponents of market incentives have suggested that only caps will reduce congestion. We do not agree. We believe market incentives will encourage more efficient use of available airspace and should result in a greater throughput than under a system using pure caps. Consequently, we expect fewer delays per passenger. For example, to the extent that airlines choose to absorb costs associated with our proposed market incentives by “up-gauging” to larger aircraft, passenger throughput will increase, effectively reducing congestion for a greater percentage of the traveling public.

Although market-based mechanisms are the most effective way to allocate scarce resources—like slots—we have taken a very conservative approach to introducing these mechanisms with this proposal.  The vast majority of hourly operations at the airport, as much as 90 percent or more, would be “grandfathered” and leased to the existing operators for non-monetary consideration.  The market-based aspect of our proposal involves auctioning off leases for only a limited number of the remaining slots and treats domestic and foreign carriers equally. 

We are firmly committed to the idea that any long-term solution to mitigate congestion in the Nation’s airspace must include a market-based mechanism.  Caps alone have proven to be insufficient, and perpetuating the kinds of delays we experienced in the summer of 2007 is not tolerable.

Conclusion

Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Hutchison, Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks on behalf of myself and Mr. Reynolds. We look forward to answering any of your questions.