STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE JOHN D. PORCARI
DEPUTY SECRETARY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

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

Hearing on

A Review of Issues Associated with Protecting and Improving Our Nation’s
Aviation Satellite-Based Global Positioning System Infrastructure

February 8, 2012

Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss this important topic.

Global Positioning System (GPS) applications are vital to transportation safety and efficiency. Tens of millions of drivers across America use GPS to navigate. The Department’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates that by 2013, 60,000 aircraft will be equipped with GPS to navigate the skies over America. Positive Train Control, which is an improved safety application for rail transportation, will increasingly rely on GPS. The Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) program will depend on GPS as a key technology for vehicle collision-warning and crash-avoidance systems. 

The Department of Transportation has committed to deploying the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) to modernize America’s air traffic control system. NextGen will transform America’s air traffic control system from the aging ground-based system of today to a satellite-based system of the future.  NextGen employs GPS technology to shorten routes, save time and fuel, reduce traffic delays, increase capacity, and permit controllers to monitor and manage aircraft with greater safety margins.

The FAA and industry have invested as much as $8 billion into NextGen. The FAA conservatively estimates that the benefits of NextGen will total $23 billion by 2018, and over $120 billion by 2030.

In addition to the transportation applications I mentioned, GPS is essential for the operations of first responders, search and rescue, resource management, weather tracking and prediction, earthquake monitoring, national security, and critical infrastructure such as dams and power plants, financial transactions, surveying and mapping, and industries such as precision agriculture, where the ability to fertilize plants with centimeter-level accuracy increases conservation, reduces waste run-off, and saves American farmers up to $14-30 billion, annually. 

As a testament to its success, the GPS program was the 2011 winner of the 60th Anniversary Award from the International Astronautical Federation for having “provided the greatest human benefit over the history of the space age”.

In June, 2010 President Obama announced an administration goal to free up 500 MHz of federally-owned spectrum and make it available for mobile broadband, in support of a goal to provide at least 98% of Americans with access to 4G high-speed wireless service, and to especially provide access to underserved rural communities. The President asked this be done in such a way as to “…ensure no loss of critical existing and planned Federal, State, Local and Tribal Government capabilities”.

LightSquared proposed that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allow the company to broadcast broadband signals in the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) band. LightSquared’s concept is to develop the first wholesale-only wireless 4G-LTE broadband network, reaching over 260 million people by the end of 2015. In January, 2011, the FCC approved this concept, contingent on LightSquared conducting tests with the GPS industry and affected federal agencies to identify and resolve any interference to GPS.

Since 2004, the Department of Transportation has served as the lead federal agency for all federal civilian uses of GPS.  I, along with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, co-chair the National Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT), which includes representatives from seven cabinet agencies, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Over the past year, at the request of the FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the agencies comprising the National Space-Based PNT Executive Committee (EXCOM) have worked closely with LightSquared to evaluate its original deployment plan, and subsequent modifications, to address GPS interference concerns. LightSquared’s cooperation in the testing and analysis has been exemplary. The company shared proprietary business plans, as well as technical data and equipment.

The test results showed that LightSquared’s design and filters effectively prevented “out-of-band” emissions; in other words, their powerful broadband signal was not ‘leaking’ into the adjacent GPS band.   

However, the powerful broadband signal operating in the upper and lower 10 MHz of the MSS band (5 billion times the signal of GPS even ½ a mile from a LightSquared transmitter) overwhelmed filters and effectively blocked GPS signals in most of the devices tested in what is referred to as “overload interference”. Also, interference caused by LightSquared’s design of a dual carrier signal (upper and lower 10 MHz channels combined) resulted in an inter-modulation product in the adjacent GPS frequency band. 

The most modern and accurate GPS devices, picking up the widest range of signals, tended to be affected the most. Less accurate “narrow band” GPS receivers, such as those commonly built into cell phones, were less affected.

Test results on LightSquared’s original operating plan to operate in the upper and lower 10 MHz of the MSS band conducted by the National Space-Based PNT Systems Engineering Forum (NPEF) and the LightSquared-led Technical Working Group (TWG) were submitted to the NTIA and the FCC respectively in June 2011.

In addition, the FAA commissioned RTCA, Inc. to study the impact of LightSquared’s proposed operations in the upper and lower 10 MHz of the MSS band on certified aviation receivers.  This report also was completed in June 2011. All three test and analysis efforts concluded that LightSquared’s planned operation would cause significant interference to GPS.  

On June 30, 2011, LightSquared submitted a Recommendation Paper to the FCC proposing to initially broadcast only on the lower 10 MHz portion of the MSS band and “standstill” on the upper 10 MHz for an unspecified period of time in an attempt to avoid many of the interference issues with GPS receivers.  In this paper, LightSquared recognized that even if transmissions were limited to only the “lower 10”, they would still interfere with many GPS high precision receivers largely used for science and surveying, and in agriculture, mining and construction.

LightSquared committed to develop filters and mitigations for affected high precision receivers, while the FCC and NTIA asked the EXCOM agencies to analyze and test LightSquared’s revised plan for interference with general navigation devices. The FAA separately analyzed the plan’s impact on certified aviation GPS devices.

If and when any interference concerns with certified aviation and general navigation devices are resolved, the involved federal agencies would then work with LightSquared to test its proposed solutions to interference with high precision receivers.   

On September 9, 2011, the NTIA Administrator requested that NPEF and LightSquared jointly test this modified LightSquared proposal with general/personal navigation and cell-phone GPS, in strict adherence to NTIA standards and methods.NTIA requested that tests enable conclusive and final recommendations about general/personal navigation and cellular GPS devices.

Participants in the second round of testing included representatives from the Departments of Defense, Transportation, Homeland Security, Commerce, Interior, Agriculture, and State, as well as LightSquared, Broadcom, Garmin, Hemisphere GPS, John Deere, OnStar, and Trimble. This testing was completed in November 2011.

Analysis of the data was based on criteria provided by the NTIA for determining harmful interference.  Based on this criteria, the NPEF testing showed that 75% of the tested general navigation devices experienced harmful interference from the LightSquared lower 10 MHz signal, experiencing a degradation in receiver carrier to noise density ratio of 1 dB or greater at an equivalent distance of greater than 100 meters from the LightSquared simulated tower. This impact is based on LightSquared’s proposed transmit power level and a standard propagation model chosen by NTIA.

The NPEF test results were independently reviewed by Idaho National Laboratory and MIT Lincoln Laboratory, neither of which are affiliated with GPS industry.  Both independent labs not only confirmed the NPEF findings, but felt that the NPEF may even have underestimated the magnitude of the harmful effects on the set of receivers tested.

In addition, FAA has been working with LightSquared since August 2011 on an analysis of the impact to certified aviation receivers of LightSquared’s planned operation at the lower 10 MHz channel only.  Since certified aviation receivers are necessarily designed and built to strict, internationally harmonized standards, analysis instead of testing is quite effective and LightSquared concurred with this approach. 

Based on this analysis, the FAA concluded that LightSquared’s proposed terrestrial network is not compatible with FAA requirements for low-altitude operations in the vicinity of LightSquared transmitters. This incompatibility is primarily focused on lower-altitude aviation operations, including use of GPS for terrain awareness and warning systems (TAWS), navigation operations to include GPS-based approaches, departures and some low-altitude enroute flight, and automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B). 

TAWS is used by the fixed-wing and helicopter communities to reduce the risk of controlled flight into terrain.  This technology uses GPS position in conjunction with a database of terrain to alert the flight crew of potentially unsafe trajectories and was mandated for commercially-operated turbine aircraft with 6 seats or more after a 1995 accident in Cali, Colombia which took 160 lives. 

The mandatory installation of TAWS into U.S. commercial aircraft is considered by many to have made the single greatest impact to improving U.S. commercial aviation safety in the last 20 years.  This technology also has been voluntarily adopted in general aviation as part of GPS-based navigation systems.  With improvements in obstacle databases, the technology has proved particularly useful for helicopter operations at low altitudes and outside of FAA-established routes. 

LightSquared has proposed to address this interference issue through a combination of site-by-site tailoring of their network density and operating parameters plus neutral third-party verification. Prior to initiating any attempt to implement such a solution, site-by-site analyses to account for differences in signal blockage and reflections would be required and the remaining technical issues on the specific propagation models would need to be resolved. 

Even if these conditions could be accomplished, maintaining the in-air power level limit presents a severe challenge, as the surrounding environment, LightSquared’s network, and aviation operations are all dynamic and continue to change.  For example, helicopter MediVac or search-and-rescue need to be able to operate anywhere and if an adjacent building is constructed, it could create a new signal reflection.

In sum, LightSquared’s proposal would require constant, individual monitoring and adjustments to over 40,000 broadcasting sites nationwide, to ensure that they could be, and would remain, consistent with air safety requirements. This is simply not practical. Therefore, based upon all of the testing and analysis that has been performed, there appears to be no practical solutions or mitigations that would permit the LightSquared broadband service, as proposed, to operate in the next few months or years without significantly interfering with GPS. 

It is the unanimous conclusion of the test findings by the EXCOM agencies that both LightSquared’s original and modified plans for its proposed mobile network would cause harmful interference to many GPS receivers.  As a result, we believe no additional testing or analysis is warranted at this time.

Substantial federal resources, including over $2 million from the FAA, have been expended and diverted from other programs in testing and analyzing LightSquared’s proposals.

This level of investment in assisting a commercial applicant to achieve the successful approval of its government application is quite unusual.  However, due to the Administration’s commitment to increased access to broadband, the investment was merited, but given the results we reviewed, further investment cannot be justified at this time.

The EXCOM agencies continue to strongly support the President’s June 28, 2010 Memorandum to make available a total of 500 MHz of spectrum over the next 10 years, suitable for broadband use. 

We propose to work with NTIA to draft new GPS spectrum interference standards that will help inform future proposals for non-space, commercial uses in the bands adjacent to the GPS signals, to strengthen existing national policy protection of adjacent band spectrum.

We will ensure that any such proposals are clearly communicated with stakeholders and are implemented without affecting existing and evolving uses of space-based PNT services vital to economic, public safety, scientific, and national security needs. 

Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions.

# # #

STATEMENT OF

DR. GEORGE C. NIELD,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION OF THE
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS,

ON

THE OFFICE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION’S FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST,

MARCH 20, 2012.

Chairman Palazzo, Ranking Member Costello, and Distinguished Members of the Committee:

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to meet with you today to update you on the ongoing activities in commercial space transportation by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as well as some of the recent developments in this area.  

We are all well aware of the historic change that has taken place in the U.S. space program with the retirement of the Space Shuttle.  We watched with mixed emotions as Atlantis lifted off the pad for its final mission on July 8 of last year.  That final mission left many wondering about the future of space transportation in this country.  While it is certainly true that the launch marked the end of an era, it also represented the beginning of what I am confident will be an exciting future in space for our nation.  Today, I would like to give you my perspective on that future and to highlight some of the ways that the FAA and the U.S. commercial space transportation industry are dealing with the challenges that we will be facing in the years ahead. 

The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) was established in 1984. Our two-fold mission is to ensure protection of the public, property, and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States during commercial launch and reentry activities, and to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space transportation. To carry out our safety responsibilities, we develop and issue regulations; grant licenses, permits, and safety approvals; and conduct safety inspections during every licensed or permitted launch. 

We are also responsible for licensing the operation of launch and reentry sites or "spaceports," as they are popularly known. Since 1996 we have licensed the operation of the California Spaceport at Vandenberg Air Force Base; Spaceport Florida at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station; the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia; Mojave Air and Space Port in California; Kodiak Launch Complex on Kodiak Island, Alaska; the Oklahoma Spaceport in Burns Flat, Oklahoma; Spaceport America near Las Cruces, New Mexico; and Cecil Field in Jacksonville, Florida.

I am very proud of the men and women who work in AST and our outstanding safety record.  Since 1989, we have licensed 205 commercial launches without any loss of life, serious injuries, or significant property damage to the general public.  We conduct safety inspections to ensure licensees and permittees are adhering to regulatory requirements.  Inspections include at least one annual inspection at commercial launch site operations and at least one inspection of launch operations at time of flight.  In addition to inspections, AST activities in support of Department of Transportation safety goals include granting licenses, experimental permits, and safety approvals, developing and issuing regulations, performing accident investigation and prevention activities, and supporting federal range operations and related aircraft traffic management.

Safety inspection is an AST core function that involves the monitoring of all licensed and permitted commercial space transportation activities. These activities include those conducted by the licensee/permittee, its contractors, and subcontractors.  All AST safety inspectors are credentialed and carry their credentials during inspections.  These inspectors use approved safety inspection plans, templates, and checklists to conduct and document inspections.  A safety inspection encompasses more than flight activities alone.  Inspectors also monitor and participate in mission dress rehearsals, safe and arm checks, flight termination system installation and checkout, accident investigation, and other activities related to public safety.  The program is built upon a firm foundation comprised of written documentation developed by AST.  Inspections are coordinated with other relevant and appropriate Agencies.

Licensing is an AST core function that fulfills statutory mandates and regulatory requirements that are designed to ensure public health and safety, safety of property, and compliance with U.S. foreign policy and national security requirements.  Licensing includes policy and payload reviews to ensure that the proposed activity does not adversely affect U.S. foreign policy or national security interests.

Looking forward, one of the most significant impacts of the Shuttle retirement is that currently, the U.S. must rely on other nations to deliver supplies to our astronauts onboard the International Space Station.  Over the next several months, two different American companies, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation, are planning to demonstrate their ability to take on that responsibility.  Those missions will be licensed by the FAA, and we are working closely with both companies, and with NASA, to ensure their success.  

While it may well be several years before we see U.S. rockets carrying people all the way to orbit, there is plenty of work going on right now that is aimed at ending our reliance on foreign interests to transport crewmembers to and from the International Space Station. American companies are eager to show that they can do the job as part of the Commercial Crew Development Program. The FAA is working directly with these companies, and with NASA, to ensure public safety during those launches, when they take place.  Over the next few years, we expect to see several abort tests being conducted, followed by uncrewed demonstration launches of the vehicles being designed for the commercial crew mission. 

The FAA is also actively engaged in collaborative planning for suborbital operations. As part of the Flight Opportunities Program, NASA recently awarded contracts to seven different companies six of which are developing reusable launch vehicles that are capable of carrying various science or technology payloads on suborbital missions.  Once the program gets underway, NASA hopes to be able to conduct those missions, under FAA licenses, as often as once per week, depending on payload demand for flights and flight opportunities program and funding level.

Space tourism represents another important segment of the industry.  Several companies are currently designing, developing, and testing vehicles that will be capable of carrying people up to the edge of space, with maximum altitudes in excess of 100 kilometers.  Based on market studies, we expect to see this type of activity result in a billion dollar industry within the next 10 years.  

States and local agencies are also continuing to approach our office with proposals for the development of commercial spaceports, with tenants ranging from NASA, to the military, to private industry.  These groups recognize the potential for jobs and economic development that could result from growth in our nation’s aerospace activities.

The President’s FY 2013 budget request for FAA AST is $16.7 million and provides for 73 full-time employees (FTEs).  Our FY 2013 request represents an increase of $429,000 over the FY 2012 enacted budget.  The request includes $15.7 million for core business operations.  It also includes $1 million for industry-based research and development and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education through the Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Transportation.  The Center of Excellence was established to encourage the teaming of resources and capabilities from academia, industry, and government to focus on research areas of primary interest to the FAA and to the U.S. commercial space transportation industry. 

AST is currently administering 14 active launch and reentry licenses for launches of Pegasus, Taurus (now called Antares), Atlas V, Delta IV, Delta II and Falcon 9.  There are currently eight active licenses for launch site operations and two license amendments submitted for significant launch site license modifications.  Based on industry launch manifests and planned flight test programs, AST forecasts a significant increase in launch and reentry operations in 2013.  This forecasted increase reflects a higher flight rate by experienced launch operators under multi-launch operator’s licenses from existing spaceports and launch sites, and new launch licenses and permits for newly-developed launch systems and proposed commercial spaceports.  AST is already performing initial safety analyses for some of the new launch systems planned to be operational in 2013.

The greater activity levels in the commercial space transportation industry will result in significant increases in the corresponding number of licenses evaluated and issued, environmental assessments, safety analyses, and safety inspections for our office.  To meet these increased workload demands, AST is planning to employ several additional flight safety and operations experts.  This will allow us to double the number of our staff assigned to operational safety oversight functions in our field offices at Cape Canaveral in Florida; in Houston, Texas; Mojave and Vandenberg AFB, California; and Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia.  It will also allow us to increase the number of simultaneous safety analyses we can perform.

We will also be collaborating within the FAA to ensure commercial space transportation requirements and operating characteristics are effectively captured within the evolving NextGen system requirements and that commercial spaceflight operations (both orbital and suborbital) are safely integrated with the National Airspace System (NAS).

AST’s FY 2013 request also provides for focused operations to address the emergence of commercial human spaceflight and related technological and infrastructure needs.  Operational safety oversight of human spaceflight will require developing technical expertise in several new areas including environmental control, life support, and crew survivability.  To date, AST’s launch safety oversight experience and authority has been primarily focused on uncrewed launches of satellites into orbit using expendable launch vehicles.  Regulatory standards governing human spaceflight will evolve as the industry matures so that regulations neither stifle. technology development nor exposed crew or spaceflight participants to avoidable risks.  In accordance with the new FAA reauthorization language, the FAA will continue to work with industry to explore these areas, but will refrain from proposing regulations to protect persons on  board during the learning period until October 1, 2015. 

The FAA stands ready to support our national interest in the future of commercial space transportation.  Space exploration is a great American story.  Our history in space has been dynamic, often innovative, sometimes tragic, but always courageous and ultimately triumphant.  And with your help and leadership, that great American story will not only continue to unfold in our favor; but it will also create new jobs, produce new technologies, and expand our reach into the deep unknown of the universe.  Again, I am honored by this opportunity to come before you today, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF

DAVID T. MATSUDA
MARITIME ADMINISTRATOR
MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

The Maritime Administration’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request

March 7, 2012

Good afternoon Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and Members of the Subcommittee.  Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget priorities and initiatives for the Maritime Administration (MARAD).  I am pleased to appear before you to highlight how the President’s budget request will support maritime transportation and its contributions to the U.S. economy and to our National security.

MARAD’s statutory mission is to promote and strengthen the U.S. marine transportation system - including infrastructure, industry and labor - to meet the economic and security needs of the Nation. 

That is why the focus of the Fiscal Year 2013 budget is on economic competitiveness, environmental sustainability, and organizational excellence. MARAD’s programs strengthen the U.S. maritime transportation system to foster economic growth and competitiveness and facilitate defense mobilization and emergency preparedness using U.S.-flag ships and U.S. citizen crews.  MARAD continues to address marine transportation environmental sustainability and energy impacts, allowing the maritime industry to increasingly be environmental “good neighbors.”  In addition, MARAD continues to work toward organizational excellence by strengthening our management, internal controls, and accountability. The President’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2013 meets each of these goals by balancing competing priorities in a fiscally responsible manner.

FY 2013 BUDGET REQUEST

The President’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget request for MARAD is $344 million, which will support the Agency’s coordinated program of activities and initiatives advancing Departmental and national maritime transportation objectives. The budget includes increases for Ship Disposal and USMMA operational requirements.

KEY PRIORITIES

One of MARAD’s key priorities continues to be providing support for the U.S Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA).  Raising the profile and prestige of the USMMA and improving the institution both administratively and academically are MARAD imperatives.  The President’s FY 2013 Budget request for MARAD also supports a structured program of capital reinvestment in campus facilities.

Another key priority for MARAD is fulfilling its role in meeting the economic and security needs of the Nation. Maritime Security Program (MSP) funding is essential for the maintenance of a U.S. presence in ocean-borne foreign commerce. In addition to providing employment for 2,400 U.S. merchant mariners, the MSP fleet also ensures the military’s ability to obtain assured access to commercial vessels and intermodal facilities and mariners.   The President’s FY 2013 budget includes a $10 million increase for MSP.  Along with $2 million from carryover funds, this request will fully fund the MSP program at the authorized level of $186 million for 60 militarily useful ships.

The FY 2013 budget request provides strong support for critical environmental efforts by including a total of $10 million for the Ship Disposal Program.  This is an increase of $4.5 million above FY 2012 enacted levels. As the U.S. Government’s disposal agent for large commercial vessels, the Ship Disposal program provides continued acceleration of obsolete vessel disposal actions, with emphasis on vessels that are a high disposal priority, including those covered by the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet (SBRF) judicial consent decree.  The budget also requests $3 million for other environmental sustainability efforts such as management of ballast water discharges and vessel air emissions.  MARAD is also exploring the feasibility of a new generation of biofuels for use in marine engines and using Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) for vessels serving the Great Lakes and other marine highways in the future.  

Finally, another priority for MARAD in Fiscal Year 2013 is the continued oversight and stewardship of Recovery Act and TIGER grant funding for maritime projects.

ECONOMY

Maritime transportation is a vital industry, contributing more than $10 billion per year to the national economy.  Maintaining the economic competitiveness and readiness of maritime transportation is the Agency’s core mission, which commands the largest share of the budget request.  Approximately 87 percent of the Fiscal Year 2013 request is devoted to programs supporting economic competitiveness and defense mobilization and preparedness to respond to emergencies.

MARAD’s mariner training activities focus on training individuals for maritime careers while developing and maintaining a vital and viable U.S. merchant marine for commerce, emergency response, and national security.  The USMMA and State Maritime Academies educate and graduate merchant marine officers ready to serve the maritime industry and Armed Forces.  In addition, MARAD’s work with shipping, shipbuilding, and port and vessel operations supports the maritime industry, which comprises more than 260,000 jobs. 

MARAD programs also support defense mobilization and emergency response readiness.  The Maritime Security Program (MSP) helps to protect the Nation through a fleet of commercial U.S.-flag vessels capable of providing global sealift and intermodal capacity to support national security and federal emergency response requirements. 

United States Merchant Marine Academy

The President’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget requests $77 million for the USMMA.  This request includes a program increase of $5 million for Academy Operations.  The program increase will support enhancements to midshipmen health coverage, Marine Transportation and Marine Engineering academic programs, and much-needed facilities maintenance and repair.  Since 2010, the increase in capital improvement funding in addition to the 2013 request of $10 million will address the most critical facility modernization and restoration priorities which include renovating the pier, the dining hall and the two remaining barracks.  In addition, MARAD has recently begun work on a new strategic plan that will develop long-term objectives and institutional goals.

Providing support and oversight to improve and strengthen the USMMA, both administratively and academically, remains a management imperative.  To that end the budget request supports restoring staffing levels at the Academy.  In fact, since the start of this Administration, nearly 50 percent of MARAD’s new hires are Academy employees.  Of that number, nearly 25 percent are veterans, underscoring our commitment to provide employment for former service members.

The Academy is also making significant progress in implementing management and process improvements responding to recommendations in the 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit report. Addressing these recommendations remains a top priority of the Academy and MARAD.  Actions we have implemented address concerns GAO expressed about policy, oversight, and governance for Non-Appropriated Funding Instrumentality (NAFI) organizations.  USMMA had 14 operating NAFIs when GAO began their initial audit in June 2008.  Today, only two NAFIs are authorized to continue operations.  The others were terminated or are in the transition process of closing because it was determined that they did not comply with governing NAFI operating principles.  Also, with the funding provided in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget, 87 percent of eligible recipients have received reimbursements of Midshipman Fee overcharges from 2003-2008, and we continue to make progress locating and contacting the remaining eligible recipients.

State Maritime Academies

The President’s FY 2013 budget requests $16 million for the State Maritime Academy (SMA) program. Of the $16 million request:

• $2.4 million will fund the Student Incentive Payment (SIP) program, unchanged from Fiscal Year 2012, enabling enrollment of 300 students to be able to meet identified Armed Forces reserve requirements.
• $2.5 million for annual direct payments to each of the six state maritime academies to provide for operational support; and   
• $11.1 million will fund maintenance and repair costs for Federally-owned training ships on loan to the various state academies.

The state academies regard the SIP program and support for their training ships as among the most important recruiting tools to encourage potential State Maritime Academy cadets to pursue careers as merchant mariners. MARAD anticipates approximately 600 students in the license program will graduate from the academies in 2013.

It is important to note that, under the National Maritime Heritage Act, the recycling of obsolete NDRF ships that result in a sales contract returns 25 percent of net sales proceeds to the Maritime Academies. In the past fiscal year, MARAD has provided more than $500,000 to the State Maritime Academies from the vessel scrap sales.

Maritime Security Program

The Maritime Security Program (MSP) is the Agency’s largest appropriated program.The primary purpose of the MSP is maintenance of a U.S.-flag fleet capable of supporting U.S. presence in foreign commerce, while also ensuring the military’s access to a global intermodal system with sealift capacity and ready U.S. mariners.MSP vessel participants have the global, multi-modal reach that delivers cargoes supporting overseas deployments of U.S. forces.A terrific example of MSP return to the Nation is the Northern Distribution Network supporting operations in Afghanistan, and the fact that MSP carriers have moved more than 90 percent of the commercial U.S.-flag sealift for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom since 2002.

The President’s Budget includes $184 million for FY 2013, an increase of $10 million from the FY2012 enacted level, for this critical, proven, and cost effective sealift program.  Together with $2 million in unobligated carry-over balances, this request will provide full program funding of 60 authorized U.S.-flag vessel fleet at the authorized $3.1 million payment per vessel.This will achieve more than 19,200 ship operating days for MSP-enrolled vessels.Funding at this level will enable DOT to continue to maintain a U.S.-flag international trade merchant fleet crewed by U.S. citizens to serve the Nation’s economic, homeland and national security needs.

Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program (Title XI)

Title XI offers loan guarantees for shipyard modernization projects and for building vessels in U.S. shipyards for operation under U.S.-flag registry.  The loan guarantees enable applicants with long-term financing at favorable interest rates, sustaining facilities for shipbuilding and ship repair within the U.S., and promoting system capacity and jobs.  The current Title XI subsidy balance for new loans is $27.5 million. The President’s FY 2013 budget requests $3.75 million for administration of the Title XI guaranteed loan portfolio to ensure compliance with the Federal Credit Reform Act.  The current loan portfolio is $2.3 billion, covering approximately 360 vessels. 

America’s Marine Highways   

Ports and Marine Highways are critical to MARAD’s mission and to economic competitiveness.  The Nation’s ports are central to the economy. The America’s Marine Highway Program focuses on increasing the use of water transportation within the U.S. to supplement road and rail where it is feasible.  Demonstration Projects funded in 2010 are beginning to come to fruition.  For example, a Marine Highway grant awarded to expand an operation between the Ports of Norfolk and Richmond in Virginia has doubled their service frequency and volume and sailing full each trip, supporting exports from the region and relieving congestion on Interstate 64. 

To support the Department’s strategic goal for economic competitiveness, existing programs like the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary grants and Assistance to Small Shipyard Grants are targeting federal resources to help improve the Nation’s port infrastructure.  The President’s FY 2013 budget requests a total of $500 million for TIGER. To date, TIGER grants have funded 17 port and maritime-related projects, totaling more than $276 million in Federal dollars and supplemented by State and local funds.  Thirteen of these projects are underway, and more than $82 million has already been expended.  These grants are modernizing and adding capacity to ports, improving connections to inland markets such as adding rail lines between the dock and existing corridors, and improving the overall efficiency of freight movement.  A fourth round of TIGER Grants is currently in progress, offering the promise of additional maritime support. In addition, $153 million in Small Shipyard Grants has been awarded to 133 projects across the country to support capital improvements at shipyards, improving their ability to compete for domestic and international ship construction.

ENVIRONMENT

MARAD environmental programs are aimed at reducing pollution and the adverse environmental effects of maritime transportation and facilities on communities and livability; focusing on obsolete vessel disposal, reducing marine air emissions, and treating ballast water.  Approximately 4 percent of the President’s FY 2013 request will fund programs supporting environmental outcomes.

Ship Disposal

The President is requesting a total of $10 million for the Ship Disposal Program in FY 2013.  The request is comprised of $7 million for ship disposal costs and $3 million to support nuclear license management for the Nuclear Ship SAVANNAH.  This is an increase of $4.5 million above the FY 2012 level.  The FY 2013 request will allow continued acceleration in the removal of obsolete ships from the National Defense Reserve Fleet for disposal, with emphasis on vessels that are a high disposal priority, most of which remain in the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet (SBRF).  There currently are less than 50 total non-retention ships remaining in MARAD’s three fleet sites awaiting disposal, which is a historic low. With the requested funding level, MARAD will be able to continue this disposal momentum with the expedited removal for recycling of up to 15 obsolete ships from all three fleet sites in 2013, which will include approximately six SBRF vessels.  The requested funding level is consistent with the requirements of the court ordered settlement with California. 

Significant costs related to compliance with the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) will continue into 2013, in particular for removal of SBRF ships that require drydocking for the cleaning of marine growth from the underwater hulls. Due to the presence of onboard hazardous materials such as residual fuel, asbestos and solid polychlorinated biphenyls on these ships, obsolete vessels must be disposed of properly.  Expedited disposal of obsolete ships lessens environmental risk and makes sense not only from the standpoint of avoiding possible harm to the environment, but also in reducing costs. 

The President’s FY 2013 request includes $3 million for the inactive Nuclear Ship SAVANNAH, providing for the continuation of support activities including nuclear license compliance, radiological protection, ship husbandry and custodial care, decommissioning planning and preparation, and historic preservation.  

Maritime Environment and Technology Assistance

Maritime transportation is an energy efficient mode for transporting people and freight; however, for a number of years now, our industry has been faced with substantial environmental challenges that go to the heart of its long-term sustainability.  The most pressing environmental issues facing the maritime industry are invasive species in ballast water, energy use and air emissions.  In the President’s FY 2013 budget, $3 million is requested for environmental sustainability efforts for these areas.  With this funding, we will continue to explore the feasibility of a new generation of biofuels for use in marine engines, with very promising results -- and using Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) for vessels serving the Great Lakes and other marine highways in the future.

MARAD has been called upon by industry and government agencies to help address these environmental pollution issues, and we recognize that more must be done to transition toward a greener maritime future.  MARAD recently launched a LNG feasibility study and engineering/design study on the Great Lakes to better understand the infrastructure needs, shipboard engineering concerns, safety and real costs of powering vessels with LNG.  In addition to the study on the Great Lakes, MARAD also is working with EPA Region 10 as well as local agencies and industry to support activities associated with LNG use in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere.

MARAD has been engaged for several years in research and study related to ballast water treatment facilities.  MARAD has provided federal funds to support three facilities to provide the Nation with the capability to test promising treatment technologies to IMO and U.S Coast Guard standards.

In addition, MARAD continues to test alternative fuels for ship use.  MARAD also is working with Canada to update the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, looking at governance, toxic substances, nutrients, ship-source pollution, science coordination, aquatic invasive species, habitats and species, and climate change impacts.

The budget request will continue to advance critical research to develop a ballast water discharge standard, advance infrastructure and methodologies for certifying and verifying ballast water technologies, and improve vessel emissions data.

EXCELLENCE

MARAD’s greatest asset is its people who are the cadre of maritime professional experts relied upon by the U.S. maritime industry and government agencies to provide policy, operational, educational and financial services in all aspects of the maritime industry.  The Agency’s expertise in the global logistics and commercial maritime industry, along with industry and international relationships developed over time, has proven invaluable to the operations of the Federal Government. 

Additional services are provided to our Agency partners and the industry using the base of expertise already established at the Agency.  Our core competencies and Agency assets have played valuable roles in the past in enhancing military readiness, providing humanitarian and disaster relief assistance, investigating impacts to U.S. ports and providing training platforms for anti-piracy operations. These services supported by the Agency’s core competencies provide a valuable asset to the country. 

MARAD regards the effectiveness of our support and administrative programs and processes as essential to the effectiveness of our operating programs. Approximately 9 percent of our Fiscal Year 2013 budget request will support staffing of headquarters operating programs and the strengthening of human resource management, information management, financial management, and administrative services.  The Fiscal Year 2013 budget includes investment in the Agency’s workforce, including training, leadership, and succession planning.  We will continue to shape our organization using feedback provided in the employee’s survey, and advance MARAD as an employer of choice. 

MARAD will continue developing our information technology (IT) operating and content environments, strengthen IT security and protection of identity information, and advance e-Government.  In 2013, MARAD will continue to document and improve processes, strengthen internal controls and compliance, and improve financial reporting for use in guiding program development and decision-making.  MARAD will work to resolve identified vulnerabilities and deficiencies, including the GAO recommendations for the USMMA.  MARAD will do all of this with a view toward greater transparency, internally and externally.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation for the opportunity to present and discuss the President’s FY 2013 request for MARAD, and for the Committee’s continuing support for maritime programs.  I look forward to working with you on advancing maritime transportation in the United States, and am happy to respond to any questions you and the members of this Committee may have. 

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF

DAVID GRIZZLE,
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION
AND
JULIE OETTINGER,
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR POLICY, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION,

ON

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT ON THE SAFETY AND COST OF THE FAA’S CONTRACT TOWER PROGRAM,

JULY 18, 2012.

Chairman Petri, Congressman Costello, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the status of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) contract tower program.  Since its inception in 1982, this program has been part of how FAA delivers safe and cost-effective air traffic control management to the users of the national airspace system (NAS).  There is a general consensus that the program has been successful and it has created measurable efficiencies in the system for both commercial and general aviation operators, while delivering safety benefits to the traveling public.  The FAA, the users of the system and the IG are confident that the contract controllers are competent and maintain the highest degree of safety. 

The program has grown significantly over the years.  It began as a pilot program to contract for air traffic control services for five Level I, lower activity towers that were closed as a result of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization strike in 1981.  The program grew to 27 towers by 1993.  In 1994, Congress provided funding for a multi-year program to convert additional FAA-operated Level I towers to contract operations.  The Program was further expanded by including towers at airports that never had an FAA-operated tower.  Today there are 250 contract towers in the program across 49 states and territories.  

As this program has developed over the years, it has been the subject of great interest and, at times, controversy.  There were fears that this was the first step toward privatization of air traffic control.  There were fears that contact towers would not provide the same level of safety as those staffed by federal government employees.  There were fears that cost savings would overrule safety in the execution of this program.  I think the good news is this program has evolved in way to be a valuable component of how the FAA manages the NAS.   

As you consider this program today, let me note a number of factors that are shaping the program. 

First, the NAS is going through some significant changes.  The economic downturn that hit the U.S. in 2008 had a profound impact on the general aviation system, and the airport operations where many contract towers are located.  There has been a decline in commercial operations at contract towers by 13%, and an overall decrease in operations at those towers by 23%.  Critically, looking forward, our forecasts do not see operational levels returning to those seen prior to the economic downturn anytime soon.  So we need to make sure we are managing a program that delivers the safety and efficiency benefits to deal with this changing pattern of aviation activity.

Second, Congress has spoken in consistent support of this program, including how to find creative public-private partnerships to foster this program.  In 2000, Vision-100 authorized a cost share program so some communities that had an airport that did not meet the required cost-benefit ratio to qualify as a contract tower could instead qualify for a contract tower where the costs are shared between the FAA and the community based on the cost-benefit ratio.  Last year, the consolidated appropriations measure for Fiscal Year 2012 (PL 112-55) included a provision that capped the amount any community could be required to pay toward the operating costs of a contract tower in the cost share program at 20% of the total cost of the tower’s operation.  We agree with the Congress about the importance of the cost share program and are committed to working in an effective fashion with stakeholders to optimize how this program can contribute to our optimal management of the NAS.

Third, as the latest IG update on the status of this important program demonstrates, towers operated by individuals who do not work directly for the federal government generally function safely and cost-effectively.  The program creates measurable efficiencies in the system for both commercial and general aviation operators while ensuring a high-level of safety in the NAS. 

Fourth, in light of the economic realities, the FAA’s ability to maximize its resources to benefit the overall needs of the NAS is extremely important.  That is why we proposed in our FY 2013 budget request to recover up to 50%, rather than the 20% currently imposed, of costs for towers that are not fully cost-beneficial.  The FAA is always investigating ways to operate more cost-effectively by reviewing and adjusting, as necessary, staffing levels, operating hours, and deployment of system enhancements.  We welcome opportunities to safely incorporate best practices from the contract tower program into FAA tower operations.

Fifth, we are updating the cost-benefit analysis for this important public-private partnership.  We last did an update of the cost-benefit analysis in 2008.  We delayed a new update for a couple of years given our uncertainties about the direction of activity levels and pending legislation that might change the program.  We are now moving forward, as existing operational trends appear to represent the new normal and Reauthorization has been enacted.   We continue to use the same basic model for our current cost-benefit work while updating inputs including traffic changes, revision to the Department of Transportation’s valuation for avoiding fatalities and injuries, and data from the FAA’s maturing cost accounting system.  We are discussing our approach to incorporating this new information with the U.S. Contract Tower Association to ensure that FAA is considering all pertinent factors in its calculations of individual towers.  FAA is determined not to make any final decisions until we have had a full and informed discussion with interested parties. 

Finally, we are undertaking a number of efforts to ensure a well-grounded longer term approach.  The FAA’s Aviation Safety organization is currently conducting a study to compare safety data between airports with manned control towers (federal or contract) and airports that are unmanned.  This information will provide the FAA with important information about the future investment in air traffic control facilities and risk management.

We also need to make sure the contract tower program is well integrated into our NextGen endeavors.  How we manage air traffic, how we use technologies, and how we organize our facilities and infrastructure will all change over time as we bring NextGen technologies into the system.

In closing, I think we all recognize we live in challenging times and are dealing with a dynamic aviation system.  Taking a static view of equipment and services that are in a given place at a given time will not deliver the system the traveling public requires.  As new technologies emerge and are integrated into the system, the needs of the NAS, including those of contract towers, may change in order to take the best advantage of safety and efficiency opportunities.

“One size fits all” never has, and never will, be an effective way to make safety and efficiency decisions that affect the NAS and the travelling public.  FAA is the guardian of a system that has achieved a safety level that is envied around the world.  We remain committed to the contract tower program as an important component of how we deliver safety and efficiency in the NAS.  While fiscal realities must play a role in aviation investments, the FAA will not tolerate any degradation in safety, and we recognize that Congress and the traveling public share that view. 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you.  I am happy to answer any questions you might have at this time.

STATEMENT OF
J. DAVID GRIZZLE,
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION OF THE
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

ON

THE CONSOLIDATION AND REALIGNMENT OF FAA FACILITIES,

MAY 31, 2012.

Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Costello, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me to testify before you regarding the consolidation and realignment of the federal aviation administration’s (faa) facilities.  The FAA’s ability to meet the future needs of the aviation system, including the implementation of NextGen, fundamentally relies on the agency’s ability to optimize our facilities and workforce, to take advantage of emerging technologies and to serve the needs of those using the national airspace system (NAS).

Section 804 Requirements

I would like to say at the outset that we at the FAA view Sec. 804 of Public Law 112-95, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, as an invaluable opportunity to obtain Congressional support to move forward with the transformation of the FAA air traffic control facilities infrastructure.  The provision directs the FAA, with input from labor and industry to develop consensus recommendations on the realignment and consolidation of  FAA services and facilities, and to report to Congress on those recommendations within 120 days from the date of enactment.  The process is collaborative in nature and will require FAA to consider the input from several sources, including the Department’s Office of the Inspector General (IG).

Inspector General Draft Audit

While Sec. 804 applies to the facility consolidation and realignment plans for the entire agency, the Inspector General’s (IG) Office has a draft audit evaluating the Air Traffic Organization’s (ATO) efforts in this area. These efforts will form the foundation for proceeding with the implementation of NextGen technologies, while maintaining the safety and reliability of the infrastructure upon which we must rely until NextGen technologies come on-line.  The FAA has not yet had an opportunity formally to provide official input to the IG’s findings.    Nevertheless, we agree with the IG’s assertions in the draft audit that FAA has not sufficiently developed the metrics necessary to quantify the merits of various alternatives with respect to consolidation and realignment.  We are working hard to determine the appropriate criteria for making FAA’s decisions moving forward.  The criteria we used previously focused primarily on capital costs of brick and mortar, which was relatively simple to apply, but failed to address critical operating costs and issues.   Contract obligations and their impact on consolidations or realignment proposals, and location-specific differences in other operating costs make these larger decisions more complex.  As we work toward developing our criteria and analytic tools, we will continue to seek the best information available to us.

The FAA currently operates 542 facilities, including air traffic control centers, TRACONs, and airport towers.   Of these, 292 are staffed by FAA employees and 250 are contract towers.  FAA is responsible for the maintenance and/or replacement of 402 of these facilities, many of which are quite old.  As noted in the IG audit, as recently as 2008, FAA was making short term decisions about how to invest its fiscal resources on facilities based primarily on the immediate need to sustain the operations in the NAS.  As the facilities aged and required more and more maintenance, it became evident that short term, facility-specific investments were not a long-term, cost-effective method of maintaining our critical infrastructure and could not adequately support the implementation of NextGen.

Framework

The U.S. airspace is the most complex in the world.  It accommodates, not only XXX commercial operations a year, but also a robust general aviation community, as well as military operations.  This mix represents an extraordinary range of aircraft types, capabilities, and missions. For several years, we have recognized the need for a more holistic approach to address the combination of aging infrastructure and advancing technologies—technologies which no longer require that controllers be located near the airspace they are controlling in order to safely separate aircraft.  Because we can combine controller groups and their airspace, we can reduce the number of boundary hand-offs and, thus, the possibility of human error.  Working with our unions over the past two years, we have developed a strategy to address different areas of airspace over the contiguous 48 states.  The strategy adopts a segmented approach, prioritizing on the basis of need and optimization opportunity for the airspace and facilities in question.

Initial Efforts

Our initial focus is on the New York area, which is encompassed in Segment One of the FAA’s Capital Investment Plan.   Problems that develop in this airspace have consequences across the country.  We are currently engaged in a collaborative process to address the future in New York with our unions and facility management playing a central role.  We need their input and acceptance in order to proceed effectively.  There are 49 facilities to be considered in Segment One. How their consolidation or realignment is accomplished is something that is receiving our utmost attention and we expect to deal with a number of them in the proposal that we submit to Congress.  Also, as required by law, we will solicit input from industry stakeholders and impacted communities to achieve a proposal with all perspectives having been considered.  While obtaining and considering the views of a broad range of affected entities will take some time, it will result in a better product.  The proposal will include consideration of the existing facilities, their condition, their location, the anticipated needs of the region, whether and where new facilities should be constructed and how FAA employees would be impacted.  The cost of different alternative approaches will also need to be considered including, the tradeoff between capital costs and long-term operating costs.

Going Forward

Similarly, as we look beyond replacing the New York facilities, we anticipate our process to make consolidation and realignment decisions will be adjusted based on lessons learned, changing demands on the system and emerging technologies.  Consequently, while FAA’s segmented plan extends out for several decades, the plan submitted to Congress pursuant to the legislation will only cover the time period into the future for which we have reasonably reliable visibility.   As a result, the plan will  go out about 5-8 years.

We all recognize the importance of meeting tomorrow’s demands as quickly as possible while continuing to ensure the safety of the air transportation system.   With respect to consolidation, realignment, and transforming to NextGen, FAA appreciates the opportunity Sec. 804 affords us to make difficult decisions with the support of Congress.  We think the segmented approach ATO has developed strikes the right balance allowing us to make challenging decisions as quickly as possible.    We agree with the IG determination that there is more work to be done to quantify and justify difficult decisions.  We expect this ongoing process to be ever more refined as we progress.

Coordination with FAA Partners

With respect to the broader Sec. 804 directive, ATO has the largest role to play, given its size and the changing mission we must support as we transition to NextGen.  However, I want to assure you that other FAA organizations, led by the Shared Services Regions and Center Organization, are working together to ensure the FAA’s approach to consolidation, particularly in administrative space around the country which will contribute to the goal of the provision.  Each affected offices/lines of business have plans to meet with appropriate union representatives to develop a target plan that can be used as a platform to begin to include aviation stakeholders and impacted communities as required by the law. 

Until the passage of the most recent authorization, there was no requirement for a single agency-wide consolidated plan.  Consequently, the different needs and goals of each organization within the FAA were treated separately and included different time frames.  All of these different goals and timeframes must be coordinated and consolidated into a single proposal for Congressional consideration.  We believe this process will be complicated, but certainly worth doing, so we are up for the challenge of meeting the Congressional mandate.  I can state with certainty that the agency’s work is underway and advancing.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I want to again thank the Committee for inviting me to testify today and for affording the FAA the chance to take advantage of the opportunity offered by Sec. 804.  I also appreciate the IG audit that confirms the complexities of our mandate and the work we must do to make the most effective decisions.  I would also like to thank our National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) partners for their collaboration in recognizing the need for significant change and to support the future of aviation.  We look forward to working with Congress, the IG, NATCA and the industry to achieve the best possible outcome for this ongoing process.

This concludes my statement.  I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.   

STATEMENT OF

MARGARET GILLIGAN,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
AND
DAVID GRIZZLE,
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER FOR AIR TRAFFIC,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

ON

A REVIEW OF AVIATION SAFETY IN THE UNITED STATES. 

APRIL 25, 2012.

Chairman Petri, Congressman Costello, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting us here today to update the Subcommittee on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) progress in implementing the safety enhancement initiatives in the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Act), and other operational issues related to air traffic management.  

First, we would like to begin with our progress on the initiatives in the 2010 Act. Over the past three years, the aviation industry, as with many other industries, has faced some tough economic challenges.  During this period, we have remained vigilant in our oversight responsibilities to ensure that we continue to have the safest aviation system in the world, while also advancing aviation for the future. The provisions in the 2010 Act helped facilitate several of these major advancements, such as new flight, duty and rest requirements for pilots, and issuing a proposal to require air carriers to implement safety management systems.  Although some of the provisions have taken longer than Congress anticipated under the provisions of the Act, we have made significant strides in accomplishing many of the objectives and I am here today to outline this progress for you.

The first area we would like to highlight for you is on pilot fatigue, which was identified as a top priority in the FAA’s 2009 call to action.  The FAA completed the final rule, which uses the latest fatigue science to address cumulative fatigue and how flight schedules affect the body’s 24-hour clock in calculating appropriate duty periods for pilots.  Flight duty periods under the new rule are more comprehensive and include flight-related activities such as time spent in training in an aircraft simulator, and standing by on-call for flights at an airport. These duties are part of the workday, contribute to fatigue, and must be counted as part of the core job of flying the airplane.  We also took into account that off-duty activities, such as playing golf or commuting, have an impact on fatigue. To address this, the final rule establishes new fitness for duty requirements that serve as a reminder to both airlines and pilots of their professional responsibilities to ensure that rest periods are used for what they are intended--to rest.

In regard to commuting, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) completed its study on pilot commuting in July 2011.  The work by the NAS represents the most recent effort to determine whether there is a link between commuting and safety. The NAS panel identified neither a correlation between pilot commuting and safety nor a unique risk to aviation safety. However, the NAS also indicated that it was unable to find enough data to appropriately determine the relationship between commuting and safety.  Based on the NAS study, and the National Transportation Safety Board’s recommendation for the FAA to address commuting, the Department of Transportation Inspector General has recommended that we survey the data in order to conduct a proper analysis on what impact commuting may have on fatigue.  We have committed to reviewing the available data and reporting to the Inspector General this fall on whether a further data collection effort would be warranted.  

The next area we would like to address for you is our progress on developing requirements for air carriers to implement safety management systems.  The FAA met the statutory deadline in the 2010 Act and issued a rulemaking proposal on October 29, 2010. It was published in the Federal Register on November 5, 2010 and the comment period closed March 7, 2011.  The FAA and industry recognize SMS as a holistic approach to safety that allows for trend spotting to help identify possible safety problems and correct them before they lead to accidents or incidents.    We know that SMS is not a substitute for FAA oversight, inspection, and audits of air carriers to ensure compliance with existing regulations and will continue to ensure our responsibilities in these areas are met. SMS would allow us, however, to take a more proactive approach to focus on risk prediction and mitigation strategies in order to tailor our oversight resources in a more effective manner.

In the areas of pilot qualification and training requirements, the FAA has initiated two rulemaking projects to address the pilot training and experience requirements highlighted in the 2010 Act. The first rulemaking project, Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers, is a comprehensive proposal that would revise the current qualification and training requirements for pilots, flight attendants and aircraft dispatchers.  We first proposed this revision in 2009, one month prior to the Continental Flight 3407 accident.  The FAA received over 3,000 pages of comments in response to this proposal. Following the accident, the National Transportation Safety Board issued several recommendations related to training requirements for air carrier pilots.  The 2010 Act mandated some additional training requirements as well.  In order to fully consider the comments, address many of the NTSB’s recommendations resulting from the accident of Flight 3407, and incorporate the mandates of the Act, the FAA issued a supplemental proposal to permit interested parties to comment on the new requirements.  The supplemental proposal was issued on May 20, 2011 and the comment period closed on September 19, 2011. The FAA is actively reviewing the comments to develop a final rule that addresses these training enhancements.

The second rulemaking proposal would substantially raise the qualification requirements for first officers (sometimes referred to as “co-pilots”) who fly for U.S. passenger and cargo airlines, consistent with the mandate in the 2010 Act.  The proposed rule would require first officers to hold an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate, requiring 1,500 hours of pilot flight time in most cases.  Currently, these pilots are required to have a commercial pilot certificate, which requires only 250 hours of flight time.  Some other highlights of the proposed rule include requiring pilots to have a minimum of 1,000 flight hours as a pilot in air carrier operations that require an ATP prior to serving as a captain for a U.S. airline; enhanced training requirements for an ATP certificate, including 50 hours of multi-engine flight experience; and completion of a new FAA-approved training program. 

            In the 2010 Act, Congress clearly acknowledged that the measurement of experience in determining when an individual may be ready to serve is not limited solely to the number of hours flown.  Rather, education and other commercial flying experience must also be considered.  Consistent with the requirements of the 2010 Act, this proposal also allows pilots with fewer than 1,500 hours of flight time to apply for an ATP certificate with restricted privileges.  As proposed, this certificate would only be issued to graduates of a four-year baccalaureate aviation degree program with 1,000 hours of flight time, provided they have obtained a commercial pilot certificate and instrument rating from a pilot school affiliated with the university or college.  Former military pilots with 750 hours of flight time may also qualify for this restricted ATP certificate.  Pilots with this restricted certificate would only be able to serve as first officers for U.S. airlines. They could not use it to serve as a captain in any commercial flying operation that requires an ATP, nor use it to teach other pilots.  Pilots seeking a restricted ATP would be tested to the same standard required for full ATP certificates, and they would be required to have the equivalent minimum instrument time and night time flight hours as a full ATP certificate would require. The comment period for this proposed rulemaking closes April 30, 2012, and we will work diligently to develop a final rule that addresses the safety initiatives required in the 2010 Act.

Finally, we would like to address two areas of the 2010 Act that have presented some additional challenges for the FAA. The first concerns the area of pilot professionalism.  We, and industry, recognize the need to continuously improve professional standards to improve flightdeck discipline.  On September 15, 2010, the FAA established an Aviation Rulemaking Committee to develop recommendations on appropriate leadership training and professional development requirements for pilots.  That group of experts delivered its recommendations in November 2010, and the FAA has considered them in developing a rule to address the mentoring mandate in the 2010 Act.  We have not met the statutory deadline for this proposal because it has been difficult to draft a proposal that appropriately balances effectiveness and resulting benefits, with regulatory burden and cost, as we are required to do.

The second area concerns the requirements in the 2010 Act for the FAA to develop a centralized database of pilot records, which would include a pilot’s training and experience history.  While we have several major milestones in place and anticipate the database proof-of-concept by August 2012, there are many technical challenges.  Some of these challenges include defining requirements for the records to be reported, and integrating thousands of records kept on all forms of media, from paper to microfiche to various automated records. 

These initiatives are very complicated, and in some cases, very expensive. As the rulemakings progress, we are constantly evaluating how these provisions may best be leveraged to improve safety, while ensuring that the aggregate costs to society are not greater than these benefits as we are required to do. We remain committed to addressing these safety enhancements while continuing with our daily oversight responsibilities, and satisfying the requirements recently set forth in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.  In the 2012 Act, we have identified approximately 20 required rulemakings, and up to as many as 10 additional projects that will likely result in rulemaking, in addition to the 2010 Act’s rulemaking requirements.  Meeting the intent of Congress as anticipated under these Acts, while complying with our other requirements in conducting rulemaking, may present some challenges.  However, as we have demonstrated with the provisions of the 2010 Act, our dedicated safety-minded aviation professionals will continue to aggressively work on these issues, while they also continue to perform inspections, analyze data, look for areas for improvement, and work with air carriers to enhance aviation safety.

We would also like to address the advancements we have made within our air traffic safety programs.  The FAA has embraced a culture change in air traffic safety. As catastrophic events become extremely rare, the new approach focuses on risk, system design and the management of behavioral choices rather than forensics. 

We have put in place an Air Traffic Management System that will provide more insight into the types of events that occur in the National Airspace System that could affect safety. The goal is to identify and mitigate risks early before an accident occurs. It is important to look at precursors because they provide a window into how the safety system is working and they help identify risks. 

One area we have targeted is occurrence reporting within the FAA Air Traffic Organization.  Occurrence reporting, which is now mandatory, emphasizes the responsibility of all FAA employees involved with air traffic services to report suspected unsafe air traffic occurrences. This gives the organization an opportunity to collect safety information to determine why adverse safety events happen and to develop interventions based on quantifiable data. The objective is to collect enough information to identify system risks, make long term corrections and prevent adverse safety events.  We have made reporting this information easier by establishing a common software platform for all facilities which will also facilitate analysis now that it is in a digital format.

To collect and analyze this information, in 2010, the Air Traffic Organization began tracking losses of separation electronically, which include those errors commonly referred to as operational errors or pilot deviations.  The tool that enables this new collection of data is known as the Traffic Analysis and Review Program (TARP) and is installed at all terminal radar facilities.  TARP is an analytical tool available to local facilities and quality assurance staff to facilitate the detection of trends and development of corrective action.  Quality assurance staff has also begun centralized processing of TARP alerts collected from over 20 facilities.  These facilities are capable of collecting alerts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and we are adding new facilities operating at this level every month. Our goal is to be able to process alerts from all facilities by September 2012.

Another tool that has had an impact on our cultural change is our Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP).   ATSAP is a confidential, non-punitive reporting program that empowers FAA employees to play a direct role in safety.  Using this tool, we have seen an increase in safety reporting that has produced a wealth of information to help the FAA identify potential risks in the system and take swift action to address them.

            The FAA is also continuing efforts to improve safety on the nation’s airport runways. The FAA is working with all stakeholders on innovative programs and techniques to reduce the number and severity of surface incidents. Some of the runway incursion prevention actions include the deployment of technology, better communication and instructions such as line-up-and- wait, explicit taxi instructions for runway crossings, and deploying local runway safety action teams throughout the country.  These efforts have contributed to a reduction in total runway incursions from 1,009 runway incursions in FY 2008 to 954 in FY 2011.

As the results of these programs have demonstrated, we have embraced the necessary cultural changes to allow us to identify and mitigate risks early.  We remain committed to empowering our employees to be proactive and providing them with the tools they need to play a direct role in the safety of the National Airspace System. 

Chairman Petri, Congressman Costello, Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes our prepared remarks.  We would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

STATEMENT OF

MARGARET GILLIGAN,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

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

ON

AVIATION SAFETY:  UPDATE ON H.R. 5900. 

MARCH 20, 2012.

Chairman Cantwell, Senator Thune, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me here today to update the Subcommittee on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) progress in implementing the safety enhancement initiatives in the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Act of 2010.   Just last month, we remembered the third anniversary of the tragic accident of Continental Flight 3407.  Over the past three years, the aviation industry, as with many other industries, has faced some tough economic challenges.  During this period, we have remained vigilant in our oversight responsibilities to ensure that we continue to have the safest aviation system in the world, while also advancing aviation for the future. The provisions in the 2010 Act helped facilitate several of these major advancements, such as new flight, duty and rest requirements for pilots, and issuing a proposal to require air carriers to implement safety management systems.  Although some of the provisions have taken longer than Congress anticipated under the provisions of the Act, we have made significant strides in accomplishing many of the objectives and I am here today to outline this progress for you.

Pilot Flight, Duty, and Rest Requirements.

In 2009, the Department of Transportation identified the issue of pilot fatigue as a top priority in the Safety Call to Action following the accident of Flight 3407.  The FAA launched an aggressive effort to create a new pilot flight, duty and rest proposal, which we issued in September 2010. On December 21, 2011, Secretary LaHood and Acting Administrator Huerta announced the completion of the final rule.   This new rule provides the necessary protections for passenger airline pilots, allowing for responsible pilots to be fully rested and alert when reporting for duty, which is what the traveling public expects when they board an airplane.  Using the latest fatigue science, the rule addresses cumulative fatigue and how flight schedules affect the body’s 24-hour clock in calculating appropriate duty periods for pilots, providing pilots a greater opportunity for rest.  Factors such as the time of day a pilot takes his or her first flight, the number of scheduled flight segments, and the number of time zones crossed, will now all be considered when determining how long a pilot can remain on duty without a rest period.

            This rule also expands the definition of a flight duty period to include more than just flying the airplane.  Flight duty periods are now more comprehensive, and include flight-related activities such as time spent in training in an aircraft simulator, and standing by on-call for flights at an airport.   These duties are part of the workday, contribute to fatigue, and must be counted as part of the core job of flying the airplane. The rule also provides for a 10-hour minimum rest period before a flight duty period, which is two hours more than required under the old flight and duty time provisions. We have also addressed cumulative fatigue by placing weekly and 28-day limits on a pilot’s schedule.

This rule provides the necessary flexibility to use fatigue science as it progresses to combat fatigue.  Air carriers will be allowed to develop a fatigue risk management system, which provides an opportunity to create an alternative model for combating fatigue by incorporating the latest innovations in mitigating fatigue.

This final rule also establishes new fitness for duty requirements that serve as a reminder to both airlines and pilots of their professional responsibilities to ensure that rest periods are used appropriately and that pilots arrive at the start of an assignment alert and ready for work.  In establishing these requirements, we took into account that off-duty activities do have an impact on fatigue for pilots, regardless of the type of activity, such as playing golf or commuting to work. We expect pilots to manage their off-duty rest to ensure they report ready for work. We expect the air carriers to support pilots who self-report fatigued and not assign them to duty.

Due to the complexity of the rule, completing this rulemaking effort took longer than expected.   As many in Congress have noted, new rules may add new costs.  As with discretionary rules, in instances where the FAA has been directed by Congress to issue a final rule, we are still required to do so in a manner in which the benefits resulting from the rule justify the costs.  In evaluating this rule under this requirement, it became clear that applying this rule to cargo operators was not clearly justified compared to the benefits generated for this segment of the industry.  The final rule does allow cargo operators to voluntarily adopt provisions of the rule, and some of these operators are already improving rest facilities for pilots. We have encouraged, and continue to encourage cargo carriers to continue improving their rest and fatigue related policies.

Safety Management Systems. 

The 2010 Act required the FAA to issue a proposal to require air carriers to develop and implement a safety management system (SMS) within 90 days of the Act’s enactment.  The FAA met this statutory deadline and issued the proposal on October 29, 2010. It was published in the Federal Register on November 5, 2010 and the comment period closed March 7, 2011.  As proposed, the SMS rule would give air carriers a set of business processes and management tools to examine data from everyday operations, isolate trends that may be precursors to incidents or accidents, and develop and carry out appropriate risk mitigation strategies.  The FAA and industry recognize SMS as a holistic approach to safety that allows for trend spotting to help identify possible safety problems and correct them before they lead to accidents or incidents.  In the proposal, the FAA described what an acceptable SMS might look like, not how the SMS requirements would be met. This allows air carriers to develop and implement an SMS that best matches the size and complexity of their own unique operating environments.  SMS is not a substitute, however, for FAA oversight, inspection, and audits of air carriers to ensure compliance with existing regulations. 

Pilot Qualification Standards.

On February 29, 2012, we published a proposal that would substantially raise the qualification requirements for first officers (sometimes referred to as “co-pilots”) who fly for U.S. passenger and cargo airlines, consistent with the mandate in the 2010 Act.  The proposed rule would require first officers to hold an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate, requiring 1,500 hours of pilot flight time.  Currently, these pilots are required to have a commercial pilot certificate, which requires only 250 hours of flight time.  Some other highlights of the proposed rule include requiring pilots to have a minimum of 1,000 flight hours as a pilot in air carrier operations that require an ATP prior to serving as a captain for a U.S. airline; enhanced training requirements for an ATP certificate, including 50 hours of multi-engine flight experience; and completion of a new FAA-approved training program. 

            In the 2010 Act, Congress clearly acknowledged that the measurement of experience in determining when an individual may be ready to serve is not limited solely to the number of hours flown.  Rather, education and other commercial flying experience must also be considered.  Consistent with the requirements of the 2010 Act, this proposal also allows pilots with fewer than 1,500 hours of flight time to apply for an ATP certificate with restricted privileges.  As proposed, this certificate would only be issued to graduates of a four-year baccalaureate aviation degree program with 1,000 hours of flight time, provided they have obtained a commercial pilot certificate and instrument rating from a pilot school affiliated with the university or college.  Former military pilots with 750 hours of flight time may also qualify for this restricted ATP certificate.  In both cases, pilots with this restricted certificate would only be able to serve as first officers for U.S. airlines. They could not use it to serve as a captain in any commercial flying operation that requires an ATP, nor use it to teach other pilots.  Pilots seeking a restricted ATP would be tested to the same standard required for full ATP certificates, and they would be required to have the equivalent minimum instrument time and night time flight hours as a full ATP certificate would require. The comment period for this proposed rulemaking closes April 30, 2012, and we will work diligently to develop a final rule that addresses the safety initiatives required in the 2010 Act.

Crewmember Training Requirements:

In January 2009, one month prior to the Continental Flight 3407 accident, the FAA published a proposal to enhance training programs by requiring the use of simulation devices by pilots.  The FAA received over 3,000 pages of comments in response to this proposal. Following the accident, the National Transportation Safety Board issued several recommendations related to training requirements for air carrier pilots.  And the 2010 Act mandated some additional training requirements as well.  In order to fully consider the comments, address many of the NTSB’s recommendations resulting from the accident of Flight 3407, and incorporate the mandates of the Act, the FAA issued a supplemental proposal to permit interested parties to comment on the new requirements.  The supplemental proposal was issued on May 20, 2011 and the comment period closed on September 19, 2011. The FAA is actively reviewing the comments to develop a final rule that addresses these training enhancements.

In addition to this rulemaking, in 2011, the FAA established the Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather (SPAW) Aviation Rulemaking Committee to examine upset prevention and recovery training and provide recommendations to address stick pusher and adverse weather events.   

Mentoring and Professionalism:

The FAA recognizes the need to continuously improve professional standards to improve flightdeck discipline.  On September 15, 2010, the FAA established an Aviation Rulemaking Committee to develop recommendations on appropriate leadership training and professional development requirements for pilots.  That group of experts delivered its recommendations in November 2010, and the FAA has considered them in developing a rule to address the mentoring mandate in the 2010 Act.  We have not met the statutory deadline for this proposal because we are evaluating how this effort aligns with existing rulemaking projects.  We aim to find a set of proposals that appropriately balances   effectiveness and resulting benefits, with regulatory burden and cost.

These rulemakings are very complicated, and in some cases, very expensive. As these rules progress, we are constantly evaluating how these provisions may best be leveraged to improve safety, while ensuring that the aggregate costs to society are not greater than these benefits as we are required to do.

We remain committed to aggressively addressing these safety enhancements while continuing with our daily oversight obligations.  In the time since the passage of the 2010 Act, approximately 1.3 billion passengers have travelled on U.S. commercial airlines without a single fatality.  At the same time, the FAA has overseen the safe management of the merger of 8 airlines, resulting in 4 new entities –each larger and more complex than ever before.  While these mergers had a significant impact on FAA resources, they were handled efficiently and in a manner that ensures continued compliance with regulations and safe operating practices.  We have also approved and assisted in implementing the use of new technologies to support NextGen – making operations safer and more efficient. And every day our air carrier safety workforce of 840 dedicated professionals performed inspections, analyzed data, spotted areas for improvement and worked with air carriers to enhance aviation safety.

Our success in advancing these safety enhancements, while continuing to manage our daily safety oversight responsibilities and plan for the future, is due in large part to the dedication of safety-minded aviation professionals in all parts of our industry, including the FAA’s inspector workforce.

In conclusion, we believe that the collective efforts of FAA, the airlines, labor unions and, of course, Congress, will continue to result in ensuring the safety enhancements identified in the 2010 Act are addressed.  Safety is at the core of the FAA’s mission, and we will always strive to make a safe system safer.  

Chairman Cantwell, Senator Thune, Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks.  I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE ANNE S. FERRO,
ADMINISTRATOR
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

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

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012

Mr. Chairman, Senator DeMint, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the business practices in the household goods moving industry.  The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) takes very seriously its responsibilities to help protect consumers that utilize the services of the moving industry through its Household Goods Program, which is why we continue to educate consumers, build partnerships with States and other Federal agencies, and take necessary enforcement action on unsafe and non-compliant moving companies.

The primary mission of the FMCSA is to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities involving large trucks and buses.  FMCSA’s 1,100 employees are responsible for monitoring the safety performance of over 525,000 active motor carriers, of which approximately 4,000 transport household goods.  Additionally, the Agency is responsible for ensuring the compliance of over 21,000 brokers to the Agency’s safety and consumer protection rules. Of these brokers, approximately 500 are household goods brokers.  Each year, the Agency performs compliance reviews on about two percent of the motor carrier industry, which is about 16,000 compliance reviews per year.  About 400 of these compliance reviews are performed on household good carriers, which is about ten percent of the household good carrier population each year.    

Over the last ten years, the Agency has expanded its household goods program by establishing strategic partnerships with States and other Federal agencies, implementing a vetting program to catch unscrupulous carriers, and conducting enforcement actions on egregious offenders.  Over time, FMCSA became aware that there were an increasing number of moving-related Web sites hosted by household goods brokers engaging in unfair business practices. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:  A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) directed the Agency to require a broker to provide shippers with specific information whenever it has contact with a shipper or potential shipper.  The Agency included these requirements as part of the “Brokers of Household Goods Transportation by Motor Vehicle” final rule that became effective on January 28, 2011.  This rule helps ensure that individual shippers who arrange for transportation of household goods through brokers receive necessary information regarding their rights and responsibilities in connection with interstate household goods moves.  The rule requires all household goods brokers to: (1) provide customers with full disclosure that they are not motor carriers; (2) provide customers with the same “rights and responsibilities” documents that household goods motor carriers are required to provide; (3) display a U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) number on their advertisements and internet Web sites; and (4) obtain a surety bond or trust fund of $25,000. 

Core Priorities

The FMCSA has a number of initiatives and programs underway aimed at achieving our core safety and compliance mission.  We have three goals that are the strategic framework and focus of our efforts and resources:

1.   Raise the safety bar to enter the industry;

2.   Require operators to maintain high safety standards to remain in the industry; and

3.   Remove high-risk operators from our roads and highways.

Raise the Safety Bar

In April 2009, FMCSA implemented a vetting program to thoroughly review applications from household goods motor carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders before granting operating authority.  The vetting process is an in-depth investigation of the applicant to determine if it is a reincarnated carrier, broker, or freight forwarder, or has affiliations with unsafe or non-compliant entities.  The Agency compares information about the applicant to data in our Motor Carrier Management Information System, which contains an overall company profile, in addition to information on the safety fitness of commercial motor carriers and hazardous material shippers subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety and Commercial Regulations (FMCSRs & FMCCRs) and the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs).  It then investigates any red flags in new applications that may indicate an unscrupulous or unsafe carrier is attempting to reincarnate, or begin operations under another name.  Since the inception of the program, the Agency has vetted and approved more than 2,400 applications of the more than 3,700 applications it has received.  Of the remaining applications, approximately 700 were rejected and 500 were withdrawn.

The new surface transportation reauthorization law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21^st Century (MAP-21), sets forth requirements that greatly improve the standard for entry into the industry.  MAP-21 directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue distinctive registration numbers to a person for each authority they request to provide transportation or services such as brokering or freight forwarding.  MAP-21 also increases the level of financial responsibility necessary to be registered as a broker, from $10,000 in surety bonds or other financial instruments to $75,000 in order to help address claims from failure to pay freight charges under a contract or agreement.   Household goods motor carriers will also be required to successfully pass an examination to demonstrate knowledge of safety and consumer protection regulations before entering the industry.

Maintain High Standards

At FMCSA, we have implemented a multi-layered approach to improving the safety of commercial motor vehicles involved in transporting household goods across State lines, while also ensuring protection against moving fraud and abuses.  The main components of our efforts to maintain high standards in the household goods industry are the National Consumer Complaint Database (NCCDB), the Top 100 Household Goods Prioritization list, and our hostage goods resolution program.

The NCCDB maintains complaint information regarding movers and passenger carriers.  Complaints can be filed in one of two ways:  (1) by calling our toll free hotline, and (2) by filing the complaint electronically on our Protect Your Move Web site.[1]  The NCCDB database is an important tool to assist our enforcement partners combating rogue household goods motor carriers. 

The FMCSA began capturing complaint data in fiscal year (FY) 2002 and received 1,973 complaints in that year.  The complaints peaked in FY 2005 with 3,583 and they numbered 2,851 in calendar year 2011.  While we track our progress in reducing complaints, we recognize that it is probable that complaints will increase as we increase our efforts to educate and outreach to consumers.

The Agency’s household goods working group, which includes Federal and State enforcement officials, has established an informal “Contributing Partner” effort to assist our State enforcement partners in accessing the NCCDB to view or enter complaint data on motor carriers and brokers.

Remove Unsafe Operators

FMCSA has developed a number of enforcement tools to crack down on those carriers that violate the FMCSRs and the FMCCRs.  We have implemented authority to remove from service motor carriers deemed to be unfit or declared an imminent hazard as part of our core safety program.  Most recently, we expanded our efforts and established guidance and procedures to revoke the operating authority of motor carriers and brokers that continually violate the safety and/or consumer protection regulations.  To combat the problem of hostage loads, we have put into place procedures to revoke the operating authority of those found to have committed violations.  Finally, FMCSA is providing public notice this week alerting the household goods industry of our enforcement efforts to suspend or revoke operating authority when carriers either demonstrate a pattern of violating the commercial regulations or hold consumers’ goods hostage.

Investigations of Motor Carriers and Brokers

FMCSA is well aware of the four motor carriers and brokers that are at the heart of your Committee’s investigation.  The Agency conducted a compliance review on Budget Van Lines in January 2011.  While this investigation did not result in an enforcement action against Budget Van Lines, it did lead to an investigation of a series of household goods carriers working in concert with Budget Van Lines that were noncompliant with the household goods regulations.  This investigation led the Agency to carriers in California, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York and resulted in enforcement actions for violations of the household goods regulations on eleven motor carriers. 

Based on complaints that we received, the Agency has also investigated Able Movers and Best Price Movers.  Able Movers’ investigation resulted in an enforcement action for non-compliance with safety regulations while the investigation for Best Price Movers resulted in no enforcement actions.  While Able and Best Price have been on the Agency’s Top 100 Prioritization list in the past, currently, there is not enough data to place them on the list as a priority investigation. A preliminary review of Nationwide Relocation shows that the company started as a broker and then acquired motor carriers, many with records of non-compliance.  The Agency is currently determining next steps, as a major investigation such as this requires FMCSA to balance this task with its core safety mission for a significant period of time. 

Top 100 Carrier List

As discussed above, the Top 100 Household Goods Carrier list utilizes data from both our Safety Measurement System (SMS) and the NCCDB to rank household goods carriers according to their risk of commercial regulatory non-compliance.

The SMS utilizes violation data from roadside inspections and investigations, as well as crash data, to identify those carriers with the highest risk of crashes and compliance problems.  This tool is the primary mechanism for FMCSA to prioritize carriers for safety interventions.  The data in SMS, when linked with the complaints in the NCCDB, allow us to identify the 100 household goods carriers with the most significant safety and compliance problems to most effectively utilize our limited resources.  These carriers are then targeted for reviews and enforcement, as appropriate.     

In FY 2011, FMCSA conducted over 500 investigations of household goods carriers, resulting in approximately 200 enforcement cases.  The Top 100 list in itself yielded an enforcement rate of nearly 50 percent clearly showing its effectiveness as a tool to help the Agency focus its limited resources on the most egregious of household goods motor carriers.

Hostage Loads

The FMCSA is also working hard to combat the problem of household goods carriers holding consumers goods and demanding additional payment.  These situations, known as “hostage loads,” are particularly egregious offenses on the consumer.  Many consumers unwittingly fall prey to unscrupulous motor carriers who take advantage and exploit the consumer.  Consumers also often hire moving companies with the lowest estimate, instead of confirming that the company is safe and has a good customer service record. 

Consumers are often unaware of the regulatory requirements that are in place to protect them.  Despite an increased focus in outreach, too many times consumers fall victim to rogue operators who are willing to disregard regulations.  FMCSA attempts to address each and every hostage load complaint with some level of investigation which could include a full onsite investigation when necessary.

MAP-21 provided the Agency with important new tools to combat problems of hostage goods situations.  Beginning October 1, 2012, FMCSA will have the authority to require the return of hostage goods loads to consumers and may also direct a portion of a civil penalty to reimburse consumers for their financial losses.  FMCSA is beginning to implement these new authorities and believes they will provide further strength to our household goods program.

Reincarnated or Chameleon Carriers

It is a common practice in the motor carrier industry for some motor carriers to establish a new identity once FMCSA shuts the company down because it is not fit, willing, or able to comply with applicable safety regulations.  The practice of reincarnating to avoid negative safety performance history or enforcement action causes an unacceptable risk of harm to the public because it hinders the Agency’s ability to enforce Federal safety regulations and carry out its safety mission.  A recent amendment to the Agency’s Rules of Practice, effective May 29, 2012, provided procedures for the Agency to issue out-of-service orders and/or record consolidation orders when carriers are deemed to be reincarnated or affiliated companies that have been created to evade complying with an FMCSA order or a regulatory requirement, paying a civil penalty, or responding to an enforcement action to avoid being linked with a negative enforcement history.

The issue of reincarnated carriers among the household goods industry has become an increasing challenge.  A recent investigation revealed a household goods motor carrier that was affiliated with several other entities that were all controlled by the same corporate officials.  For each of these affiliated businesses, the NCCDB revealed numerous complaints.  In an effort to address these types of issues, FMCSA is pursuing the affiliated motor carriers and it is considering the feasibility of suspending their operating authority. 

Broker Activities

On January 28, 2011, FMCSA’s new requirements pertaining to brokers who arrange for the transportation of household goods in interstate or foreign commerce went into effect.  The rule requires, among other things, that when the Unified Registration System final rule becomes effective, all household goods brokers display a USDOT number on their advertisements and internet Web sites.  In an effort to facilitate this requirement in advance of the full compliance date, the Agency has already issued USDOT numbers internally to all brokers in the database.

The rule also provided regulatory authority to address many of the concerns that we commonly face with problematic or unethical brokers.  For example, brokers are required to clearly state that they are not a motor carrier in their advertisements.  This has been a consistent problem because unscrupulous brokers are aware that consumers prefer to deal with the motor carrier directly. 

MAP-21 sets forth requirements for higher standards for compliance and gives the Agency additional tools for enforcement.  It increases the registration requirements and directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue distinctive registration numbers to motor carriers, brokers, or freight forwarders.  It prohibits a motor carrier from brokering transportation services from other motor carriers unless the motor carrier is also a registered broker.  MAP-21 also provides effective periods for registration and requires a broker or freight forwarder to provide a minimum financial security of $75,000 dollars and to evaluate if that amount is sufficient every 5 years.

Outreach

Another layer in our multifaceted approach to increasing safety and consumer protection is the implementation of an aggressive outreach program.  The cornerstone of this effort is the “Protect Your Move” Web site, which serves as a first line defense to protect the consumer.  The site contains a wealth of information for consumers to use while planning a move as well as a variety of consumer protection bulletins, “The Moving Fraud Protection Checklist,” and a public service announcement.  FMCSA recognizes that those hiring moving companies are a diverse group – college graduates venturing into new careers, employees changing jobs, or individuals who are moving during retirement.  The Web site targets materials for all these groups.  Public awareness of the Protect Your Move Web site is building.  During the first 9 months of FY 2012 (October 1 through June 30, 2012), there were over 6,300,000 Web site hits compared to approximately 3,600,000 during the same period in FY 2011.  This represents a 74 percent increase.  We understand that moving is a stressful time, and our goal at FMCSA is to ensure that the consumer is protected to the fullest extent.

The Web site also includes links to the NCCDB so that consumers can research registration status and complaint history of household goods motor carriers and brokers before hiring them.  This database allows the consumer to review and examine the motor carrier’s safety and complaint data.  Other features on the Web site include:  (1) a regulatory webpage for our enforcement partners and industry with appropriate Federal regulations and statutes; (2) a State and local government resource webpage offering information to the consumer whose problems are beyond FMCSA’s jurisdiction; and (3) a summary of the new broker requirements.

To combat the problem of unsafe and rogue moving companies, FMCSA is constantly reaching out to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to develop partnerships to enhance enforcement and combat consumer fraud.

As a result of discussions with the Government Accountability Office, FMCSA reviewed the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) approach to consumer protection and is making changes in the interstate household goods consumer protection efforts to clearly articulate the Department’s goal of ensuring consumer protection within its mission.  These discussions led to the proposed sharing of FTC’s investigative database, the “Consumer Sentinel Complaints Database.”  FMCSA also reviewed FTC’s enforcement strategies and implemented collaborative efforts to provide outreach to inform consumers who contact FTC on household goods moving fraud. 

A second relationship was forged with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) and a formal memorandum of understanding to formalize collaboration efforts on enforcement activities combating household goods fraud and unscrupulous motor carrier operations.  This partnership allows FMCSA to be involved in enforcement on international movements of household goods.  While this partnership is new, the Agency is eagerly pursuing opportunities to fight rogue motor carriers with the support of FMC. 

Another Federal collaboration to combat fraudulent motor carrier operations is with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).  The OIG has been given access to FMCSA’s complaint databases, and they are using the data to target motor carriers with numerous complaints of fraud.  To date, the OIG has completed several investigations on motor carriers with fraudulent activities.  The OIG recently used data from the NCCDB to conduct an investigation and indict a large motor carrier operation.  Through our collaborative efforts, FMCSA assisted in the criminal case by providing expert testimony during the trial. 

FMCSA also has an aggressive campaign to solicit full State law enforcement partners to work directly with FMCSA to enforce Federal commercial regulations within their jurisdictions.  To facilitate this effort, FMCSA has provided numerous training opportunities to States that are interested in receiving household goods enforcement training.  To date, Louisiana, Ohio, Indiana, California, New Jersey, Michigan, South Carolina, and Texas have received training on household goods enforcement.  Of those States trained, Louisiana, Ohio, and Texas have signed memorandums of agreements – becoming full enforcement partners with FMCSA.  As a result, each of these States may conduct household goods compliance reviews on interstate motor carriers.  In accordance with the provisions of SAFETEA-LU, they will have the ability to retain the financial penalties from any pending enforcement action.  

Household Goods Working Group

As outlined in SAFETEA-LU, the Agency established a working group of State attorneys general, State consumer protection administrators, and Federal and local law enforcement officials to enhance the Federal-State partnership on issues involving the interstate transportation of household goods.  The statute further required that the working group make legislative and regulatory recommendations to the Secretary concerning enforcement efforts.   The workgroup identified three priority areas for enhanced outreach coordination:

1.     General Communication and Information Sharing;

2.      Information Sharing Related to Federal Laws and Regulations; and 

3.     Enforcement-Specific Communication and Information Sharing.

To fully implement these goals, the Agency is continually engaging the enforcement community and providing updated regulatory, legal, and investigative information. As mentioned earlier, FMCSA has provided State Partners and Contributing Partners access to the NCCDB through the “Protect Your Move” website.  The database allows partners to view household goods enforcement information that can benefit their investigations. 

The FMCSA has issued a call for all States to become contributing household goods enforcement partners, which allows them access to the NCCDB to directly input complaints from consumers related to interstate moves.  

Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.  Over the last few years, FMCSA has made significant progress in executing its commercial enforcement program.  We have a good program with limited resources.  The goal of our dedicated staff and partners is to protect consumers and protect the highways.  We are continuing to build on these successes and enhancing the program through data-driven decision making.  We look forward to executing the provisions in MAP-21 that increase FMCSA’s ability to raise the safety bar to enter the industry, require operators to maintain high safety and ethical standards to remain in the industry, and to allow FMCSA to remove high-risk operators from our roads and highways.  

STATEMENT OF

ANNE FERRO
ADMINISTRATOR
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to speak about the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Program.  CSA is FMCSA’s compliance model to improve commercial motor vehicle safety and ultimately reduce large truck and bus crashes, injuries, and fatalities on our nation’s highways.  CSA enables the Agency to identify high risk motor carriers and achieve improved levels of compliance with Federal commercial motor vehicle safety and hazardous materials regulations. Additionally, through increased operational efficiencies, CSA is enabling FMCSA and its State safety enforcement partners to identify and address compliance and safety deficiencies of a larger segment of the motor carrier industry than we did previously with less interruption to motor carriers’ business operations. 

Core Priorities

FMCSA has a number of initiatives and programs underway aimed at achieving our core safety mission. We have set a strategic framework in which to prioritize our responsibilities and clearly focus our efforts and resources on a vision of eliminating crashes involving commercial vehicles. FMCSA aims to:

1. Raise the safety bar to enter the industry;

2. Require operators to maintain high safety standards to remain in the industry; and

3. Remove high-risk operators from our roads and highways.

This strategic framework applies to companies, drivers, brokers, and service-providers alike.

While recognizing the important safety work that remains to be accomplished, I would like to point to some of the recent improvements in motor carrier safety:

• Even with continued growth in all vehicle miles traveled, and an 8 percent increase in miles traveled by commercial motor vehicles from 2000 to 2010, fewer fatalities from crashes involving large trucks and buses occurred in the past 2 years than in any other 2-year period since fatal crash data collection began in 1975.
• Fatalities from large truck and bus crashes have declined 26 percent since 2006 (5,347) to 2010 (3,944).
• Safety improvements have been realized not only in terms of fatal crashes, but also in injury crashes. In 2010, 106,000 people were injured in crashes involving large trucks and buses, the second-lowest number of persons injured in these crashes since 1988, the first year of injury crash data collection.
• According to Federal Highway Administration data, the number of people injured in large truck and bus crashes declined 16 percent from 2006 to 2010 and declined 36 percent from 2000 to 2010.[1]

The reduction in severe and fatal crashes involving commercial motor vehicles comes about through the dedication and hard work of many people represented by the stakeholders in this room. We have made great progress, but nearly 4,000 fatalities and more than 100,000 injuries in large truck and bus crashes each year, we can and must do more.  FMCSA's employees are passionate about saving lives. With clear priorities and productive stakeholder relationships, I assure this Committee and the public that we are on a path to increase the effectiveness of our safety oversight of the motor carrier industry.

Why CSA?

Since 1986, the Compliance Review (CR) has been the primary intervention and investigative tool used by FMCSA to compel compliance and determine the safety fitness of large trucks and buses. A CR is a comprehensive, on-site assessment of a motor carrier’s records by one of FMCSA’s (or a State’s) safety investigators at the carrier’s principal place of business. If a carrier’s safety fitness is determined through a CR to be unsatisfactory, FMCSA may prohibit it from operating.

The CR is very effective in changing unsafe behavior; however, it can also be very time consuming and labor intensive for both the motor carrier and safety investigators.  It limits the Agency and its State partners’ to evaluate the safety performance of less than 3percent of the approximately 525,000 active carriers each year.  Moreover, our current regulations for issuing statutorily-required safety fitness determinations for motor carriers is tied to the CR, meaning the Agency cannot incorporate on-road performance to issue a safety fitness determination on a carrier, no matter how far a motor carrier’s on-road performance may have slipped or improved.  

To address these shortcomings, the Agency worked to improve its ability to improve safety and compliance, resulting in the CSA program we have today.

The Three Components of CSA

CSA consists of three components:  (1) the system, (2) the process and (3) the rule.  The system is the Safety Measurement System (SMS), which uses all available inspection and crash data to assist the Agency in prioritizing motor carriers for review.  The process refers to the Agency’s intervention tools, designed to allow the Agency to reach more carriers with its limited resources.  Finally, the rule refers to the Safety Fitness Determination rulemaking that would allow the Agency to utilize all available roadside inspection data in conjunction with on-site investigative data to rate the safety performance of motor carriers, and to determine whether they are fit to continue to operate.  The Agency plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on the Safety Fitness Determination early next year.

Throughout the process of developing and rolling out CSA, FMCSA has involved all of our stakeholders and actively sought out comments and input from all interested parties. 

For example, last month the Agency established a CSA subcommittee within the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) to provide concepts, ideas, and recommendations on the program.  This MCSAC subcommittee will be another avenue for the Agency to receive input regarding CSA from an established forum of representatives from across the spectrum of safety and other motor carrier stakeholders.

Additionally, the Agency also announced last month its latest round of improvements to CSA, which incorporate public comments received from a preview of proposed changes to the Agency’s SMS website.  These changes to the CSA program follow public input and demonstrate the Agency’s commitment to a program of continuous improvement and transparency, and reflect our commitment to regularly invite and consider concerns of our stakeholders.

The Safety Measurement System

SMS is the tool FMCSA uses to allocate its resources toward the highest risk motor carriers to improve safety. The SMS analyzes compliance and safety violations discovered during roadside inspections along with data gathered during investigations and reportable crashes to measure a carrier’s performance in seven Behavior Analysis Safety Improvement Categories, or BASICS. The BASICs are: (1) Unsafe Driving, (2) Fatigued Driving (Hours-of-Service), (3) Driver Fitness, (4) Controlled Substances/Alcohol, (5) Vehicle Maintenance, (6) Cargo-Related, and (7) Crash Indicator.  The BASICs group violations into specific and distinct categories related to unsafe or non-compliant behavior, providing the Agency a more comprehensive, robust and granular view of the specific performance and compliance issues of individual motor carriers. SMS has sufficient performance data to make an intervention prioritization assessment in at least one BASIC for nearly 200,000 of the approximately 525,000 active interstate or intrastate hazardous materials motor carriers for which FMCSA has safety oversight responsibilities. More importantly, analysis reveals that those same 200,000 motor carriers are involved in approximately 93 percent of the crashes reported to FMCSA by our State partners.

Additional analysis by FMCSA and the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) shows that SMS is an effective tool to identify the motor carriers at highest risk of crashes. In fact, UMTRI found SMS is a significant improvement over the prior SafeStat system in identifying carriers with high crash rates and FMCSA effectiveness testing has demonstrated that motor carriers designated as high-risk by SMS BASICs have future crash rates that are more than double the crash rates of all active carriers.  With respect to the individual BASICs, both FMCSA and UMTRI analyses show particularly strong associations between high scores in the Unsafe Driving and Fatigued Driving (Hours-of-Service) BASICs and future crash rates.

FMCSA has been transparent in explaining that analysis does not suggest an association between some BASICs and future crash rates.  What we have seen, however, is a relationship between non-compliance in one BASIC and non-compliance and unsafe behaviors in other areas.  For example, three out of four motor carriers that are above FMCSA’s intervention threshold in the Driver Fitness BASIC are also above our intervention threshold in at least one other basic.  FMCSA uses such correlating information to optimize its resources by placing more emphasis on those BASICs where non-compliance has a stronger statistical association with future crashes, for example, speeding and driving over allowable hours. At the same time, FMCSA holds motor carriers accountable for BASICs that measure compliance with important safety regulations such as ensuring their drivers are properly licensed and medically qualified. 

FMCSA’s deployment of SMS has significantly raised safety awareness throughout the motor carrier industry. In calendar year 2011, the public website that provides a motor carrier’s status in the SMS prioritization system hosted nearly 30 million user sessions, up from 4 million user sessions under the prior public SafeStat system in calendar year 2010.  FMCSA continues to receive feedback that this increased awareness and transparency has raised the status of safety within corporate cultures and we are seeing this increased awareness in improved safety compliance and performance data. For example, violations per roadside inspection were down by 8 percent in 2011, and driver violations per inspection were down by 12 percent. This is the most dramatic improvement in violation rates in the last 10 years.

While FMCSA recognizes the clear safety benefits from being transparent and making carrier prioritization status in the SMS largely available to the public, FMSCA is also cognizant of the need to provide proper context to the data and to be responsive to stakeholder concerns. To that end, FMCSA clearly states on its SMS public website that SMS data only prioritizes motor carriers for safety interventions and do not constitute formal safety ratings.   The Agency also encourages the public to use all available safety data, including not only SMS, but Licensing and Insurance information, and formal safety ratings.

We recognize that FMCSA’s use of crash data in SMS is a concern for some of FMCSA’s stakeholders, particularly, the fact that the State-reported crash data utilized by the Agency does not distinguish crashes based on whether they are the responsibility, or “fault,” of the motor carrier.  We acknowledge the perception of unfairness of a system that uses data from crashes that are not the fault of the carrier in question. However, FMCSA utilizes crash history data because repeated analyses have shown that crashes -- regardless of the carrier’s role in the crash -- are a strong predictor of future crashes.  The Agency has clearly stated that the crash data are based on crash involvement, without determination of responsibility.  In addition, the Crash BASIC itself is not shown to the public. 

FMCSA is looking at various options to best use crash data to identify carriers that have the greatest risk of future crashes.  As part of this effort, FMCSA is pursuing a program called “crash weighting.”  The premise of the program is to identify crashes for which a carrier had greater responsibility, and consider weighting them differently than other crashes in the SMS.  Earlier this year the Agency presented its draft proposal to the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC).  Based on questions from MCSAC members following the presentation, it became clear that our proposal warranted further study to ensure that the Agency develops the most effective, efficient and fair process to address the approximately 130,000 crashes that are reported each year. 

Two months ago, the Agency released the scope and schedule for a crash weighting study.  As part of this study, the Agency is reviewing the uniformity and consistency of police accident reports; the process for making “final” crash determinations; the process for accepting public input; and the actual effect on SMS’s ability to better identify carriers that have a high crash risk.  As part of this effort, the Agency released the results of a report that analyzed the coding accuracy and consistency of Police Accident Reports for consideration as a potential source of information for determining a motor carrier’s role in crashes.  While this study provided useful information, it did not address key questions that will be examined as part of our study, including whether or not the carrier’s role in the crash is a better indicator of future crash risk and what other information including public input should be used in a comprehensive crash weighting system.  FMCSA intends for this study to guide the Agency in determining if crash weighing makes SMS a better, sharper tool, and if so, what demands would be placed on the Agency to administer such a system.  The Agency intends to release the results of this study in the summer of 2013.  Based on the results, FMCSA will develop the Agency’s plan forward for determining a carrier’s role in a crash and the potential use of this new information in the Agency’s safety programs – including  SMS.

FMCSA is committed to continuously improving the SMS. Throughout the life of the program, we have carefully considered constructive feedback from the motor carrier industry, drivers, enforcement personnel, safety advocates, and other stakeholders in making data-driven and analysis-based refinements. In fact, FMCSA recently announced improvements to CSA that incorporate public comments received from a preview of proposed changes to the Agency’s SMS website. The changes are the latest round of improvements to the CSA program and will address longstanding concerns and include the creation of a new Hazardous Materials Compliance BASIC, to increase the focus on violations that can lead to severe consequences of a crash involving hazardous materials.  Other changes that were included address longstanding concerns of the industry, while aiming to improve the effectiveness of SMS to identify carriers with poor safety and compliance histories. The Agency also has recently addressed the relative weighting of suspended license violations, to focus resources on drivers that are suspended for safety related reasons.  In a future effort we are going to continue the process of improvement by assessing the impact of adjusting the unsafe driving and crash basic denominator for higher fleet utilization and analyzing the weights applied to certain high-volume violations as well as considering the MCSAC’s recommendation to simplify the violation severity weighting system.

The key to SMS is quality data.  In addition to the 130,000 reported crashes annually, the SMS utilizes data from 3.5 million roadside inspections conducted by our State partners each year.  It is worth noting that one-third of these inspections have no violations, which shows it is possible for carriers to improve their SMS scores with clean inspections.  To manage our Data Quality initiatives, the Agency has developed the “DataQs” system to allow individuals and carriers to submit challenges to correct erroneous data in the system.  The challenges are routed to the issuing State for review.  Currently, of the 3.5 million inspections, less than one percent is challenged and the States have been responsive to those requests.

We continue to work with the States to ensure uniformity and consistency in the handling of DataQs requests.  For example, the Agency has prepared a detailed guidance manual for State DataQs analysts, which is also posted on our website.   

We are committed to continually working with our enforcement stakeholders, including the States and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance to improve the quality of data submitted to SMS to ensure the SMS is the most effective tool possible. 

Interventions

The Agency’s second major component of CSA is the intervention process.  As stated above, prior to CSA, the Compliance Review (CR) was the primary intervention and investigative tool FMCSA used to compel compliance and to determine the safety fitness of large truck and bus companies. The CR is labor intensive and, in turn, limits the number of carriers with problem-indicators that FMCSA can investigate. The FMCSA now has more tools in its toolbox from which to choose in response to a motor carrier’s compliance and safety performance.  These include warning letters and focused and comprehensive investigations. Additionally, the Agency is in the process of preparing to deploy off-site investigations in all States.

The interventions approach is designed to compel compliance and remedy demonstrated on-road performance deficiencies early, before a crash occurs. A motor carrier that has not demonstrated past safety and compliance deficiencies, but is beginning to do so, will receive a warning letter from FMCSA highlighting the specific BASICs that may require attention.  This letter serves to notify the carrier of the SMS results and provides them an opportunity to address any safety management practices prior to a more significant intervention taking place.  UMTRI analysis of this intervention tool  indicates that 83 percent of carriers that receive a warning letter and no further interventions  had resolved the identified safety or compliance problem within twelve months of receiving the letter.  The Agency monitors a carrier’s performance following the warning letter, and should the carrier’s compliance improve, the carrier is no longer identified for further intervention.

The Agency has received various responses from industry regarding these warning letters, with some carriers expressing appreciation for the early notification and opportunity to make changes in safety management practices prior to a more significant and time consuming intervention. 

The SMS BASICs provide specific measurement of a motor carrier’s compliance and allows the Agency to conduct a “focused intervention.”  By focusing on specific problems and highlighting the area of concern, the Agency interventions are more strategic and less labor intensive than the CR and more efficient for the carrier.  This focused intervention model ultimately improves compliance behavior, and reaches more carriers while being less intrusive and time consuming for all parties.  Smaller motor carriers and owner operators subject to focused investigations or offsite investigations will spend less time in the office working with the safety investigator, and more time on the road in operations.  Analysis of the 30-month CSA Operational Model Test, demonstrated an overall 35 percent increase in the number of carriers reached per safety investigator, in comparison to the prior SafeStat / CR model and these focused interventions take less time and cost approximately 53 percent less than CRs.

CSA has changed the investigative process as well.    Federal and State safety investigators are trained not just to identify violations, but also to identify the root cause of the safety deficiency and review these root causes with carrier officials.   This approach is known as the Safety Management Cycle.  As an example, with hours-of-service violations the root cause could be training and communication, or a lack of internal oversight policies, practices and procedures on the part of the motor carrier. We believe that by working with those motor carriers that demonstrate a willingness to correct their safety deficiencies, identifying the root cause not only facilitates quicker corrective action, but corrective action that will be more sustainable over time.  Later this year the Agency will begin performing offsite investigations nationwide.  In an offsite investigation, the carrier submits documentation to a division office for review, without the need for a safety investigator to visit the motor carrier’s place of business. 

Analysis of the CSA Operational Model test indicated that the CSA focused investigation, incorporating the Safety Management Cycle, can be more effective than the traditional   compliance review.  The Agency will continue to conduct comprehensive onsite investigations on those motor carriers that demonstrate safety deficiencies across multiple BASICs, as well as on passenger carriers and certain hazardous materials carriers, because of their inherent risk. In addition, the Agency will continue to fully meet its Congressional mandate with respect to high risk motor carriers by requiring that this population receive onsite investigations of their safety practices.  As discussed below, until an Agency rulemaking is completed, the on-site investigation will remain the Agency’s method for issuing safety fitness determinations under current rules.

In summary, by leveraging SMS and more focused interventions, the CSA program improves safety performance, provides less resource- and time-consuming interventions for both the Agency and motor carriers, and allows the Agency to reach more carriers.  These interventions are more effective and designed to identify compliance problems early, before crashes occur.

Safety Fitness Determinations Rulemaking

The third component of the CSA model is a revision to the Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) methodology specified under current regulation.  This proposed new methodology will be published for notice and public comment in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking early next year.  The proposed new SFD would be designed to replace the current labor-intensive process in which the Agency may propose and issue a safety rating only following an onsite CR investigation.  With current resources, the Agency is limited to issuing safety fitness ratings through the approximately 18,000 onsite reviews conducted each year, on a population of 525,000 active carriers.  The new SFD process would propose use of all available data in the system to make this determination.  The SFD rulemaking also would address a long-standing National Transportation Safety Board recommendation, H-99-006, to “Change the safety fitness rating methodology so that adverse vehicle and driver performance-based data alone are sufficient to result in an overall unsatisfactory rating for the carrier.”

Conclusion

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.  I feel strongly that over the last few years, FMCSA has made significant progress in implementing CSA and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our program.  The net result is improved safety in commercial motor carrier operations. We are continuing to build on these successes as we finalize the program, through data-driven decision making and processes as transparent and inclusive as possible.

Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you today.

STATEMENT OF

WILLIAM A. BRONROTT
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

JULY 11, 2012

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Velazquez, and members of the Committee on Small Business, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to speak to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) Compliance, Safety and Accountability (CSA) Program and the impact on small businesses.  CSA is FMCSA’s compliance model to carry out its important safety mission of reducing large truck and bus crashes, injuries, and fatalities on our nation’s highways. It enables the Agency to identify high risk motor carriers for early intervention and achieve improved levels of compliance with Federal commercial motor vehicle safety and hazardous materials regulations. Additionally, through increased operational efficiencies, CSA is enabling FMCSA and its State safety enforcement partners to identify and address compliance and safety deficiencies of a larger segment of the motor carrier industry than we were previously able to using the SafeStat system and compliance review model, with less interruption to motor carriers’ business operations.  We have examined the effect of CSA on small business and have found there is fair treatment across the industry regardless of carrier size.  Our improvements also take away less time from these small businesses and help keep them on the road.

Core Priorities

FMCSA has a number of initiatives and programs underway aimed at achieving our core safety mission. We have set a strategic framework in which to prioritize our responsibilities and clearly focus our efforts and resources on a vision of eliminating crashes involving commercial vehicles. FMCSA aims to:

1. Raise the safety bar to enter the industry;

2. Require operators to maintain high safety standards to remain in the industry; and

3. Remove high-risk operators from our roads and highways.

This strategic framework applies to companies, drivers, brokers, and service-providers alike.

While recognizing the important safety work that remains to be accomplished, I would like to point to some of the recent improvements in motor carrier safety:

• Even with continued growth in all vehicle miles travelled, and an 8 percent increase in miles traveled by commercial motor vehicles from 2000 to 2010, fewer fatalities from crashes involving large trucks and buses occurred in the past 2 years than in any other 2-year period since fatal crash data collection began in 1975.
• Fatalities from large truck and bus crashes have declined 26 percent since 2006 (5,347) to 2010 (3,944).
• Safety improvements have been realized not only in terms of fatal crashes, but also in injury crashes. In 2010, 106,000 people were injured in crashes involving large trucks and buses, the second-lowest number of persons injured in these crashes since 1988, the first year of injury crash data collection.
• According to Federal Highway Administration data, the number of people injured in large truck and bus crashes declined 16 percent from 2006 to 2010 and declined 36 percent from 2000 to 2010.[1]

The reduction in severe and fatal crashes involving commercial motor vehicles comes about through the dedication and hard work of many people represented by the stakeholders in this room. However, with nearly 4,000 fatalities and more than 100,000 injuries in large truck and bus crashes each year at an economic cost surpassing $58 billion, we can and must do more. FMCSA's employees are passionate about saving lives. With clear priorities and productive stakeholder relationships, I assure this Committee and the public that we are on a path to increase the effectiveness of our safety oversight of the motor carrier industry.

Why CSA?

Since 1986, the Compliance Review (CR) has been the primary intervention and investigative tool used by FMCSA to compel compliance and determine the safety fitness of large trucks and buses. A CR is a comprehensive on-site assessment of a motor carrier’s records by one of FMCSA’s (or a State’s) safety investigators at the carrier’s principal place of business.

The comprehensive CR has proven to be very effective in changing unsafe behavior, however it is also very time consuming and labor intensive for both the motor carrier and our safety investigators. A CR can take up to a week or more to complete, depending on the size of the carrier and the complexity of violations found.  This was a problem because, before CSA, the comprehensive CR was the primary tool at the disposal of our safety investigators to begin the process of assessing a motor carrier’s safety fitness and compelling improved compliance on a company-wide level.  Moreover, our current regulation for determining the safety fitness of motor carriers is tied to the comprehensive CR. Based on the findings of comprehensive CRs, motor carriers are issued a safety rating of Satisfactory, Conditional, or Unsatisfactory.  However, these ratings cannot change from on-road performance, no matter how far a motor carrier’s on-road performance may have slipped or improved.  The end result of these limitations is that FMCSA could address the safety deficiencies of only a small fraction of the industry – between two and three percent of the carrier population annually.  FMCSA data indicate there are approximately 525,000 active, registered commercial motor carriers and 7 million commercial driver licensees operating in interstate commerce monitored by the Agency’s 1,100 employees, approximately 850 of which operate in the field.

How CSA is Improving Safety through Compliance and Accountability

CSA consists of three components:  (1) the system, (2) the process and (3) the rule.  The system is the Safety Measurement System (SMS), which a safety measurement system that uses all available inspection and crash data to assist the Agency in prioritizing carriers for review by the Agency.  The process refers to the Agency’s intervention tools, designed to allow the Agency to reach more carriers with its limited resources.  Finally, the Safety Fitness Determination rulemaking would utilize available roadside inspection data in conjunction with investigative data to make Safety Fitness Determinations.  The Agency plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on the Safety Fitness Determination early next year.

Throughout the process of developing and rolling out CSA as the Agency’s new enforcement and compliance program, FMCSA has responded to the concerns of our stakeholders and actively sought out comments and input from all interested parties.  We are committed to a program of continuous improvement and transparency and regularly meet with our stakeholders to discuss their concerns.

The Safety Measurement System

The SMS is designed to analyze compliance and safety violations discovered at the roadside along with data gathered during investigations and reportable crashes to measure a carrier’s compliance and safety performance in seven behavioral areas called BASICs – Behavior Analysis Safety Improvement Categories. These are: (1) Unsafe Driving, (2) Fatigued Driving (Hours-of-Service), (3) Driver Fitness, (4) Controlled Substances/Alcohol, (5) Vehicle Maintenance, (6) Cargo-Related, and (7) Crash Indicator. By analyzing the violations grouped into specific and distinct categories related to unsafe or non-compliant behavior, SMS provides a more comprehensive, robust and granular view of the specific performance and compliance issues of individual motor carriers. SMS is the key tool FMCSA uses to allocate intervention resources toward the highest risk motor carriers in alignment with the Agency’s goals and direction from Congress. Both FMCSA and independent analysis confirm SMS is effective in meeting the Agency goals.

While the CSA program has been criticized for a perceived lack of data in SMS, our analysis shows that the SMS has sufficient performance data to make an intervention prioritization assessment in at least one BASIC for nearly 200,000 of the approximately 525,000 active interstate or intrastate hazardous materials carriers for which FMCSA has safety oversight responsibilities. More importantly, the analysis reveals that those same 200,000 motor carriers are involved in approximately 93% of the crashes reported to FMCSA by our State partners.

Additional analysis by FMCSA and the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) shows that SMS is an effective tool to identify the highest risk motor carriers. In fact, the UMTRI evaluation of SMS demonstrates that it is a significant improvement over the prior SafeStat system in identifying unsafe carriers.  FMCSA effectiveness testing conducted by the UMTRI has shown that SMS identifies 25% more high risk carriers and those carriers have 56% more crashes than the carriers identified on the prior SafeStat A or B lists.

With respect to individual BASICs of the SMS, both FMCSA and UMTRI analyses show particularly strong associations between high scores in the Unsafe Driving and Fatigued Driving (Hours-of-Service) BASICs and future crash rates. FMCSA has been transparent, however, in revealing that analysis does not suggest a statistical association between two of the current seven BASICs – Driver Fitness and Cargo-Related – and future crash rates. FMCSA uses this information to optimize its intervention resources by placing more emphasis on those BASICs that measure compliance with regulations that have stronger statistical associations to future crashes, for example, speeding and driving over allowable hours. At the same time, FMCSA holds motor carriers accountable for BASICs that measure compliance with important safety regulations such as ensuring their drivers are properly licensed and medically qualified.  FMCSA’s deployment of the SMS has significantly raised safety awareness throughout the motor carrier industry. In calendar year 2011, the public website that provides a motor carrier’s status in the SMS prioritization system hosted nearly 30 million user sessions, up from 4 million user sessions under the prior public SafeStat system in calendar year 2010. Anecdotally, FMCSA continues to hear that this increased awareness and transparency has raised the status of safety within corporate cultures. An examination of violation rates from roadside inspections in calendar year 2011 indicates this increased awareness is already improving safety compliance and performance. Violations per roadside inspection were down by 8%, and driver violations per inspection were down by 12% in 2011. This is the most dramatic improvement in violation rates in the last 10 years.

While FMCSA recognizes the clear safety benefits from being transparent and making carrier prioritization status in the SMS largely available to the public, FMSCA is also cognizant of the need to provide proper context to the data and be responsive to stakeholder concerns. To that end, FMCSA includes information on the SMS public website that clearly states that it uses SMS to prioritize motor carrier for safety interventions and explains that assessment in the BASICs do not constitute formal safety ratings.   The Agency has also provided public outreach materials to promote the use of all available safety data, including not only SMS, but Licensing and Insurance information, and formal safety ratings.

The use of crash data in SMS has also been a concern for some of FMCSA’s stakeholders, particularly, the fact that the State-reported crash data utilized by the Agency do not distinguish crashes based on whether they are the responsibility or “fault” of the carrier.  FMCSA has multiple studies, however, showing that crashes, regardless of the carrier’s role in the crash, are a strong predictor of future crashes. FMCSA’s materials and public display of crash data clearly state that the crash data is based on crash involvement without determination of responsibility, and the SMS crash BASIC itself is not shown to the public. 

Toward our goal of continuous improvement FMCSA has been looking at various options to best use crash data to identify carriers that have the greatest risk of future crashes.  As part of this effort, FMCSA has been pursuing a program called “crash weighting.”  The premise of the program is to identify crashes for which a carrier had greater responsibility, and consider weighting them differently than other crashes in the SMS.  Earlier this year the Agency presented the draft proposal to the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC).  Based on questions received from MCSAC members following the presentation, it became clear that the proposal warranted further study to ensure that the Agency develops the most effective, efficient and fair process to address the approximately 130,000 crashes that are reported each year. 

Later this month, the Agency will release the scope and schedule for the crash weighting study.  The study will include a broad review of the uniformity and consistency of police accident reports; examination of the process for making “final” crash determinations; the process for accepting public input; and the actual effect on SMS’s ability to better identify carriers that have a high crash risk.  Finally, this data will help us to determine the ability of the Agency to address the potentially large volume of crash weighting requests within our current resources.

FMCSA is committed to continuously improving the SMS. Throughout the life of the program, we have carefully considered constructive feedback from the motor carrier industry, enforcement personnel, safety advocates, and other stakeholders in making data-driven and analysis-based refinements. In fact, FMCSA is currently providing motor carriers an opportunity to preview and provide comments on a package of proposed SMS improvements before they are implemented. Many of the proposed improvements are based on industry and stakeholder input received since initial rollout of SMS in December 2010.  As part of this recent preview effort, FMCSA sent notices to over 185,000 motor carriers to announce the proposed improvements, encourage comments, and offer free webinars explaining the proposals.  Over 700 motor carriers participated in the subsequent webinars and were encouraged to provide feedback on the current proposed improvements as well as suggestions for future improvements.  Nearly13,000 carriers have logged into the SMS Preview website to view these enhancements.  

Through the SMS preview and other outreach efforts, the Agency is working to identify additional improvements to further enhance SMS’s effectiveness in assessing safety risk and targeting unsafe carriers, even as we are completing the current group of changes.  For example, the Agency is currently working on improvements that address the relative weighting of suspended license violations, to focus resources on drivers that are suspended for safety related reasons; we are assessing the impact of adjusting the unsafe driving and crash basic denominator for higher fleet utilization; and analyzing the weights applied to certain high-volume violations as well as considering the MCSACs recommendation to simplify the violation severity weighting system.

The key to SMS is quality data.  In addition to the 130,000 reported crashes annually, the SMS utilizes data from 3.5 million roadside inspections conducted by our State partners each year.  It is worth noting that one-third of these inspections have no violations, which shows it is possible for carriers to improve their SMS scores with clean inspections.  To manage our Data Quality initiatives, the Agency has developed the “DataQs” system to allow individuals and carriers to submit challenges to correct erroneous data in the system.  The challenges are routed to the issuing State for review.  Currently, of the 3.5 million inspections, less than one percent is challenged and of those challenged nearly two-thirds result in a data correction. 

We continue to work with the States to ensure uniformity and consistency in the handling of DataQs requests.  For example, the Agency has prepared a detailed guidance manual for State DataQs analysts, which is also posted on our website.   

We are committed to continually working with our enforcement stakeholders, including the States and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance to improve the quality data submitted to SMS to ensure the SMS is the most effective tool possible. 

Interventions

The Agency’s second major component of CSA is the intervention process.  As stated above, prior to CSA, the Compliance Review (CR) was the primary intervention and investigative tool FMCSA used to compel compliance and to determine the safety fitness of large truck and bus companies. The CR is labor intensive and, in turn, limits the number of carriers with problem-indicators that FMCSA can investigate. The FMCSA now has more tools in its toolbox from which to choose in response to a motor carrier’s compliance and safety performance.  These include warning letters, focused and comprehensive investigations. Additionally, the Agency is in the process of preparing to deploy off-site investigations.

The interventions approach is designed to compel compliance and remedy demonstrated on-road performance deficiencies early, before a crash occurs. A motor carrier that has not demonstrated past safety and compliance deficiencies, but is beginning to do so, will receive a warning letter from FMCSA highlighting the specific BASICs that may require attention.  This letter serves to notify the carrier of the SMS results and provides them an opportunity to address any safety management practices prior to a more significant intervention taking place.  The Agency has received various responses from industry regarding these warning letters, with some carriers expressing appreciation for the early notification and opportunity to make changes in safety management practices prior to a more significant and time consuming intervention.  These carriers inform FMCSA of the corrective action put in place to immediately begin addressing and remedying the violations received roadside.  Analysis of the warning letter process indicates that twelve months following a warning letter, 83% of carriers had resolved the identified safety or compliance problems.  The Agency monitors a carrier’s performance following the warning letter, and should the carrier’s compliance improve, the carrier is no longer identified for further intervention.

The SMS BASICs provide specific measurement of a motor carrier’s compliance and allows the Agency to conduct a “focused intervention”.  By focusing on specific problems and highlighting the area of concern, the Agency interventions are more strategic and less labor intensive than the CR and more efficient for the carrier.  This focused intervention model ultimately improves compliance behavior, leads to improved safety, and reaches more carriers while being less intrusive and time consuming for all parties.  Smaller motor carriers and owner operators subject to focused investigations or offsite investigations spend less time in the office working with the safety investigator, and more time on the road in operations.  Analysis of the 30-month CSA Operational Model Test, demonstrated an overall 35% increase in the number of carriers reached per safety investigator, in comparison to the prior SafeStat / CR model and these focused interventions take less time and cost approximately 53% percent less than CRs.

CSA has changed the investigative process as well.    Federal and State safety investigators are trained not just to identify violations, but also to identify the root cause of the safety deficiency and review these root causes with carrier officials.   This approach is known as the Safety Management Cycle.  As an example, with hours-of-service violations the root cause could be training and communication, or a lack of internal oversight policies, practices and procedures on the part of the motor carrier. We believe that by working with those motor carriers that demonstrate a willingness to correct their safety deficiencies, identifying the root cause not only facilitates quicker corrective action, but corrective action that will be more sustainable over time.  Later this year the Agency will begin performing offsite investigations nationwide.  In an offsite investigation, the carrier submits documentation to a division office for review, without the need for a safety investigator to visit the motor carrier’s place of business. 

Analysis of the CSA Operational Model test indicated that the CSA focused investigation, incorporating the Safety Management Cycle, can be more effective than the traditional   compliance review.  The Agency will continue to conduct comprehensive onsite investigations on those motor carriers that demonstrate safety deficiencies across multiple BASICs, as well as on passenger carriers and certain hazardous materials carriers, because of their inherent risk. In addition, the Agency will continue to fully meet its Congressional mandate with respect to high risk motor carriers by requiring that this population receive onsite investigations of their safety practices.  As discussed below, until an Agency rulemaking is completed, the on-site compliance review will remain the Agency’s method for issuing safety fitness determinations under current rules.

In summary, by leveraging SMS and more focused interventions, the CSA program improves safety performance, provides less resource- and time-consuming interventions for both the Agency and motor carriers, and allows the Agency to reach more carriers.  These interventions are more effective and designed to identify compliance problems early, before crashes occur.

Safety Fitness Determinations Rulemaking

The third component of the CSA model is a revision to the Safety Fitness Determinations (SFD) methodology specified under current regulation.  The new methodology will be implemented through notice and comment rulemaking beginning with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking early next year.  The new SFD will be designed to replace the current labor-intensive process in which the Agency may propose and issue a safety rating only following an onsite CR investigation.  With current resources, the Agency is limited to issuing safety fitness ratings through the approximately 18,000 onsite reviews conducted each year, on a population of 525,000 active carriers.  The new SFD process will propose use of all available data in the system to make this determination.  The SFD rulemaking also is intended to address a long-standing National Transportation Safety Board recommendation, H-99-006, to “Change the safety fitness rating methodology so that adverse vehicle and driver performance-based data alone are sufficient to result in an overall unsatisfactory rating for the carrier.”

Impacts on Small Businesses

We are always cognizant of the impact that Agency programs may have on business operations of all sizes, and we take care to ensure we are having the greatest impact on safety while minimizing the effect on a carrier’s operation.  FMCSA’s database shows 85% of the registered carriers have 5 or fewer power units.  In analyzing those impacts specifically for small businesses we found that SMS identified approximately the same number of carriers for intervention in the “5 or fewer power unit” category as were identified in the SafeStat system.  Specifically, 93% of active carriers with small operations (defined as 5 or fewer power units) do not exceed the intervention threshold in any BASIC.  This is comparable to SafeStat that identified approximately the same number of carriers.  As mentioned earlier, I am also confident we are now doing a better job of identifying those carriers with both compliance and safety problems.

To return to a point I made earlier, the purpose of the CSA program is to better identify those carriers that have safety and compliance problems, and to use effective and efficient intervention processes to help them improve their compliance and hence their safety performance.  The CSA program is working to achieve that goal, and has done so without the issuance of a single new regulation.  CSA has not resulted in any additional regulatory compliance requirements for businesses, small or large.  The program leverages the results of daily inspection and investigation work based on longstanding regulations to ensure that compliance and accountability lead to safe operations.  The intervention scheme, through the use of warning letters, off-site investigations and focused interventions, is designed to help carriers improve safety and prevent unsafe carriers from operating.

Conclusion

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.  I feel strongly that over the last few years, FMCSA has made significant progress in implementing CSA and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our program.  We are continuing to build on these successes as we finalize the program, through data-driven decision making and processes as transparent and inclusive as possible.

Thank you again for this opportunity.