Official US Government Icon

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure Site Icon

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Testimony

In This Section

Opportunities and Challenges Facing Short Sea Shipping in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF

COLLISTER JOHNSON, JR.,
ADMINISTRATOR

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 15, 2007

Chairman Cummings, Ranking Member LaTourette, Members of the Subcommittee,

I am pleased to be here today to offer the views of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC or Corporation) regarding the opportunities and challenges facing Short Sea Shipping in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway.  Why is Short Sea Shipping important to the Seaway?  Historically, this waterway has been a pathway primarily for bulk commodities.  Yet, the Seaway serves the industrial and agricultural heartland of North America and could be used for the transshipment of containers to inland ports, thereby easing congestion in the rail and truck modes and strengthening the nation’s economy.

As background for the Subcommittee, the SLSDC is a wholly owned government corporation and an operating administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation.  The SLSDC is a sister agency to the U.S. Maritime Administration and seeks to complement that agency’s leading efforts to promote Short Sea Shipping as a viable mode of transportation.  The Corporation operates the two U.S. Seaway locks located in Massena, N.Y., and controls navigation in the U.S. portions of the Seaway.  In addition, the Corporation is charged with promoting maritime trade into and out of the Seaway.

The Great Lakes offers tremendous and tangible possibilities for Short Sea Shipping in this country.  It has a wealth of marine assets already in place to facilitate this type of commerce.  It also has several established U.S. and Canadian companies and well-financed entrepreneurs who are making sizeable investments in marine transportation.  In addition, the region is the location of the greatest international flow of goods anywhere in the world.

An additional reason for the SLSDC’s interest in Short Sea Shipping is the Department of Transportation’s focus on congestion mitigation as our most important policy initiative for the next two years.  Secretary Mary Peters has charged each Administrator with seeking tangible solutions to the congestion problems facing this country.  The Seaway is a major transportation resource with plenty of room to grow, a claim that few other transportation routes can make.  We estimate that the Seaway currently operates at only 50-60 percent of its potential capacity where other modes of transport are straining under the weight of growing congestion.

The intense focus on Short Sea Shipping in the Great Lakes is the result of one simple fact – the level of trade between the U.S. and Canada represents the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world.  In 2005, annual goods and services trade between the two countries was valued at $557 billion.  According to the Canadian-American Business Council, Canada and the United States exchange goods worth an average of $1.2 billion per day.  Canada buys nearly one-quarter of all U.S. exports of goods and no fewer than 37 U.S. states count Canada as their number one export destination.

The Ambassador Bridge, which links Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario, annually carries more cargo by value than the entire U.S. imports received from Japan, our fourth largest trading partner ($128 billion vs. $118 billion in 2003).  Figures from 2000, the most recent figures we could find, show that the Ambassador Bridge was the world’s busiest border crossing, accounting for 26 percent of the total 13.6 million annual commercial crossings between Canada and the United States.  Since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, bilateral commerce between our two countries has grown at a 6 percent annual rate and is expected to continue performing at least as well into the future.

Needless to say, as a result of the enormous volume of Canada-U.S. trade, there is tremendous congestion at this country’s land border-crossing points.  Traffic delays at the Ambassador Bridge of more than two hours during peak traffic periods are common.  The congestion statistics for the border bridges in and near Buffalo, N.Y. are equally sobering.  The costs associated with this congestion, in terms of lost productivity, wasted fuel, air pollution, and infrastructure degradation are enormous.  For example, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce claims that the annual loss to the U.S. economy as a result of such congestion is $4.1 billion and notes that 73 percent of U.S. exports to Canada by value moved by truck.  More than 37,000 trucks cross our northern border every day, a rate that works out to one truck every 2.5 seconds.  With the cost of an idling truck estimated to be $150 per hour, more and more shippers are eager to explore a waterborne solution to a growing surface-congestion problem. 

The Great Lakes are a vast inland sea with deepwater access to the world markets through the Seaway.  The Lakes serve the population centers of all the major manufacturing states of the region:  Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.  Given this geographic fact, the volume of cross-border trade, and the acute congestion at the land border crossings, one would expect to find numerous marine ferry services between the Unites States and Canada carrying trailers, containers, and every imaginable form of commercial cargo.  This, however, is not the case.  In fact, the entire Great Lakes region has only one active Short Sea Shipping truck ferry service, the Detroit - Windsor Truck Ferry, which is a niche carrier ferrying hazmat cargo and oversize project cargo.

Why is there such a dearth of cross-lake, non-bulk Short Sea Shipping when it would appear that all the economic and geographic conditions needed for it to thrive are in place?  I have asked many business executives, port directors, and other industry experts this question over the past three months since coming into this job.  Based on these conversations, I believe that a large part of the answer to this question is that certain aspects of the regulatory framework created to address commercial navigation never contemplated Short Sea Shipping developing here as an option.  Both the U.S. and Canada have several laws and policies that make it difficult, if not impossible, for Short Sea Shipping to prosper on the Great Lakes.

The Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) is the prime example on the U.S. side exemplifying this situation.  Application of this tax encourages cross-border traffic to move by land rather than by water.  The HMT was created in 1987 as a part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.  The tax is currently imposed on most commercial cargo imported into the U.S. through ports where the Army Corps of Engineers has expended funds to improve or maintain such port.  The HMT is vitally important to supporting the commercial navigation infrastructure of this country.  Indeed, my agency is directly funded through the revenue raised through the HMT.  Nevertheless, the HMT does not apply to cargo imported into this country over land.  As a result, U.S. shippers moving goods into this country who have a choice will invariably move cargo in a truck over land, rather than in a ship over water, even if doing so means having to incorporate hours of delay at the border into their logistics schedules.  These delay-related costs have, unfortunately, become part of the “cost of doing business” to ship goods over the border.  They are also exacerbating land-based congestion at our northern border.  Trucking companies we have talked to are fully supportive of cross-lakes truck ferry service because it allows them to achieve much greater productivity with their assets and drivers.  Moreover, it is my understanding that since there is no appreciable Short Sea Shipping on the Great Lakes, the HMT produces virtually no revenue for the U.S. Treasury from this source.  Consequently, it appears that if the HMT was removed or waived for Great Lakes Short Sea Shipping, there would be no appreciable loss of revenue to the U.S. Government.

Another public policy issue that adversely affects the development of Short Sea Shipping in the Great Lakes Seaway System is the 24 hours of advance notice required by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for cargo traveling from Canada by water.  There is no question that advance notice of imported goods serves a vital national interest.  To ensure adequate security at our borders, CBP has adopted a policy that requires shippers importing cargo into the U.S. to provide information on what they are importing prior to the shipment’s arrival at a border crossing.  In the case of a truck trailer, a shipper must provide CBP with advance notice of only one hour prior to arriving at the border crossing.  For shipments moving by rail, the notice requirement is two hours.  For a similar shipment moving into the U.S. via water where there is no driver on board, however, CBP requires at least 24 hours advance notice prior to the cargo being loaded into the vessel. 

Over the past three months, I have met with the heads of various U.S. and Canadian companies who are interested in launching Short Sea Shipping services on the Great Lakes:  Marine Link, which would operate a year round trailer ferry service from Hamilton, Ontario, to Oswego, N.Y. and from Port Maitland, Ontario, to Erie, Pa.; Great Lakes Feeder Lines which would transship containers through the Seaway from Montreal, Quebec,  to Canadian and U.S. ports;  and Hannah Marine, which would carry grain on tug barges through the Seaway to Wilmington, N.C.  Based on these meetings and from my many years as an executive in the transportation industry, I believe that these companies are ready with the expertise, financing, and equipment needed to make Short Sea Shipping a reality on the Great Lakes within the next two years, but only if a workable solution to the two issues I have identified today can be found.  They are ready to work cooperatively with the relevant U.S. agencies to satisfy their concerns in an effort to make Short Sea Shipping a viable option on the Great Lakes.

I would like to commend the Subcommittee for taking the time to focus its attention on Short Sea Shipping.  Congestion is one of the greatest transportation problems facing our country today, and Short Sea Shipping offers a real solution to address this problem.  Nowhere among our nation’s waterways is there a greater potential for using this form of waterborne transportation, and of reaping the safety, social, economic, and environmental benefits it can provide, than in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System.  The Corporation will continue to work closely with the Maritime Administration on this important initiative, as well as with other interested agencies.

Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you today.  I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

How the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is Working to Improve Oversight of Drug and Alcohol Testing of Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) Drivers

STATEMENT OF

JOHN HILL
ADMINISTRATOR
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTUCTURE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

NOVEMBER 1, 2007

Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today to describe how the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is working to improve oversight of drug and alcohol testing of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.  I am pleased that the Subcommittee has provided this forum for our partners and stakeholders to discuss how they believe the existing program may be improved.  Joining me this morning is Mr. Jim Swart, Acting Director of the Department’s Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy Compliance (ODAPC).

The FMCSA is responsible for regulating approximately 4.2 million employees and the vast majority of the regulated employers (approximately 600,000 companies).  Utilizing our inspectors in the field, FMCSA has implemented an aggressive program to examine compliance with the drug and alcohol regulations during roadside inspections, safety audits, and compliance reviews (CRs) to deter impaired driving.  The Agency takes every opportunity to educate the industry regarding the drug and alcohol testing regulations.  I am happy to report today that the data indicates that commercial vehicle operators are among the safest transportation workers in the United States.  FMCSA’s most comprehensive commercial vehicle crash study, the 2006 Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS), found very little illegal drug use or alcohol abuse among the CMV drivers, just 2.3 percent for illegal drug use and .8 percent for alcohol use for all large trucks involved in the LTCCS crashes.  The last completed annual survey of drug and alcohol testing results revealed that fewer than two percent of CDL drivers are testing positive for controlled substances and that fewer than one percent are testing positive for alcohol, based on random testing performed by motor carriers.  The fact of the matter is that while some transportation workers use illicit drugs, the overwhelming majority does not.

While these data are positive, FMCSA continues to look for ways to improve our programs to further deter drug and alcohol use by commercial vehicle drivers.  Challenges continue to exist with regard to “job-hoppers,” those who move to other companies after testing positive for drugs or alcohol, oversight of owner-operators, and the increased sophistication of adulterants that can mask “positive” drug tests.

To meet these challenges, our Agency works to continually improve our strategies to increase the knowledge of our regulated employers, service agents, and employees about regulatory compliance.  FMCSA is increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of our compliance and enforcement activities to ensure that identified problems are addressed swiftly. We enjoy the support of our safety partners and the regulated industry in our common effort to deter alcohol abuse and illegal drug use by CMV drivers.  These initiatives give us hope for our program’s continued success

TARGETING HIGH RISK CARRIERS AND DRIVERS

FMCSA, with our State partners, focuses on drug and alcohol compliance during all compliance activities, which include roadside inspections, safety audits, and CRs.  The Agency uses an aggressive risk-based approach in addressing safety priorities with our compliance and enforcement resources.  This strategy has produced significant safety results and has increased the regulated industry’s awareness of areas to improve.  In 2006, FMCSA and the States reviewed the compliance of more than 15,000 drug and alcohol programs during CRs of high risk motor carriers.  Nearly 64 percent identified implementation deficiencies.  All of these carriers received regulatory guidance and technical assistance to correct the problems; 2,775 of them were fined for serious noncompliance.  Additionally, since the program’s inception in 2003, 147,815 new entrant safety audits have been completed.  Last year, we reviewed the drug and alcohol testing programs of more than 40,000 new entrants to the motor carrier industry through our safety audit activities and counseled more than 42 percent of them about deficiencies in their drug and alcohol programs.  Our revised New Entrant Rule will only enhance this issue with motor carriers when published in 2008.

In addition to reviewing the effectiveness of drug and alcohol testing programs during CRs and new entrant safety audits, FMCSA and our State partners conducted over 3 million roadside inspections last year.  During each of these inspections, drivers were evaluated for signs of drug or alcohol use and, if use was discovered, they were removed from the roadway.  In 2006, 5,466 drivers, or 2 tenths of a percent, were discovered under the influence or in possession of drugs or alcohol during roadside inspections and were removed immediately from the highways.  Once convicted, these drivers are subject to disqualification of their Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) and, consequently, their privileges to operate a CMV.  FMCSA has worked with the States to strengthen the CDL program to ensure that CMV drivers convicted of driving under the influence, as well as many other convictions, lose their driving privileges.  The Agency has implemented the CDL provisions of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) as part of our continuing efforts to improve the safety of trucks and buses.

FMCSA also performs significant outreach to the motor carrier industry about drug and alcohol testing regulations.  As members of a regulated industry, motor carriers are responsible for being aware of their obligations to comply with FMCSA safety regulations, including those concerning drug testing.  In cooperation with ODAPC and the other DOT operating Administrations, we have developed a number of implementation guides that simplify the requirements and illustrate what employers, drivers, collectors, and medical review officers (MROs) must do in order to make the testing process effective.  We have produced and distributed thousands of brochures, books, and posters, and continually make presentations to industry associations and other groups to help clarify the drug and alcohol testing requirements and to promote awareness and quality implementation

DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING REGULATORY CHALLENGES

Using our dual and complementary strategies of education and enforcement, FMCSA and our State partners have been able to minimize impaired driving in the commercial motor vehicle industry.  While we are pleased with these results, we seek better information sources regarding drug and alcohol noncompliance and ways to better educate the industry about the requirements.  Additionally, FMCSA identifies and addresses challenges not met through the oversight scheme I discussed previously.

Job Hoppers

One of the greatest challenges facing FMCSA and the industry as we try to eliminate alcohol abusers and drug users from the CMV driver population is the “job hopper.”  A job hopper is the driver who tests positive for drug and/or alcohol use and is discharged by one carrier, only to be hired by another carrier in a week or two after the driver has cleansed all illicit substances from his or her body.  Generally, the “positive driver” fails to reveal the identity of the previous employer with whom he or she had tested positive.  Thus, the subsequent employer has no way of knowing about the positive test.  Such a driver could continue to use illegal drugs or abuse alcohol until being caught again, at which time the driver could repeat the process with the next carrier.

The job-hopping driver is not a new regulatory challenge.  Section 226 of MCSIA required a study of the feasibility and merits of requiring MROs and employers to report positive test results to State CDL licensing agencies.  The study was done and the findings and recommendations were reported to Congress with a copy to this Subcommittee.  The study concluded that it is feasible to establish a national database of positive drug test results.  If a database were established, the report recommends that it be operated by the Federal government to ensure consistency and uniformity.  FMCSA is moving forward to address this problem.

A number of strategies are being evaluated.  FMCSA has begun a compliance initiative to identify drivers who fail to comply with the return-to-duty process – the process of being evaluated by a substance abuse professional (SAP) and undergoing the counseling or follow-up testing the SAP prescribes.  We have been successful in identifying a number of drivers that have avoided the required return-to-duty process and have removed them from the highways by having the State rescind the CDL.  While the process effectively identifies noncompliant drivers and removes them quickly from the roadway, it is labor-intensive.  Currently, our efforts have not provided the broad-based results necessary to discourage drivers from job-hopping but modifications are being developed to streamline and improve the effectiveness of the process.

Another strategy being assessed is one initiated by a number of States.  Some States require the reporting of positive drug test results to the State licensing agency, usually the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).  Two States, North Carolina and Washington, take action to revoke or suspend the driver’s CDL until the driver proves he is in compliance with the return-to-duty requirements.  Other States merely gather the information and may list the positive test result on the driver’s record or they may use it for “statistical purposes.”  Unfortunately, these programs impact drivers only with licenses from the State in which they are tested and the State enforcement authority may be limited regarding employers who fail to report the positive test.  Nevertheless, FMCSA is exploring the possibility of this becoming an effective tool if all States were to participate.

Along a similar line, FMCSA’s reform of our compliance and enforcement efforts – known as the Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 (CSA 2010) – recognizes the need to collect more comprehensive data regarding drug and alcohol compliance.  Compliance with drug and alcohol regulations is one of seven performance-based Behavioral Safety Analysis Improvement Categories (BASICS) that FMCSA plans to use in the future to target motor carriers and drivers for compliance.  CSA 2010 is examining strategies for collecting drug and alcohol testing information to ensure our new compliance model is able to identify drivers and carriers that do not comply with our drug and alcohol regulations.

Many people have mentioned, over the years, that it would be desirable to create a national data base of drivers who have violated the Department’s drug testing rules.  Employers could query such a data base to determine if an applicant was out of compliance with our rules.  As with any large database containing personally sensitive information, we would have to ensure that: only the minimum information necessary to perform our safety function is collected; the information is used only for safety-sensitive purposes; the information is secure; the information is reported and updated promptly; and there is an adequate mechanism to ensure that individuals can get erroneous information corrected or eliminated from the system.

Owner-Operators

Another challenge to the effectiveness of FMCSA’s Drug and Alcohol Testing Program is the “owner-operator,” often a one-person trucking company that generally has its own operating authority and does not work regularly for any one motor carrier.  Currently, owner-operators are required to join a consortium to administer their random drug testing but if the owner-operator tests positive for drugs or alcohol or refuses to test, the consortium may report the positive result or refusal to the owner-operator only, and not to the State or FMCSA.

Unfortunately, there exists very little data about owner-operators.  Recent statistics indicate that there are nearly 143,000 owner-operators.  We suspect that many of these are leased to other larger motor carriers but continue to maintain their own operating authority.  We have not determined the answer to the owner-operator problem but believe that a reporting requirement similar to that discussed previously for job-hoppers would improve the situation.

Cheating

As we work to deter safety-sensitive workers from using illegal drugs, we are aware of the problem of cheating.  Cheating is a serious matter because it diminishes the deterrent effect of our program if employees believe they can get away with using drugs.  As a former law enforcement official, I saw first-hand the awful consequences to impaired drivers –both CMV and passenger vehicles.

As a Federal program, FMCSA’s rules must maintain a proper balance between our compelling interest in safety and the legitimate privacy expectations of employees.  The Supreme Court and other Federal court cases have approved or upheld the DOT testing program because it maintains this balance.

For this reason, Part 40 requires that all testing take place in Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) – certified laboratories, using stringent protocols to ensure that the tests are scientifically sound.  Manufacturers of alternative testing methods, involving the testing of hair, saliva, and sweat, frequently market their products as the answer to cheating.  To date, only urine testing meets the Part 40 requirement.

Perhaps the most obvious way of countering the use of adulterants and substituted specimens would be to make all tests observed directly.  I think most people would agree that, in the civilian context, directly observing all employees for all tests would make the testing process vastly more intrusive, as well as more costly.  It is likely that such a change to the program would require additional legislative authority.  Even with this authority, the Department is concerned that the Courts may reasonably conclude that such a change would adversely affect the balance between the safety purposes of the program and employees’ privacy interests.

Laboratories already use “specimen validity testing” (SVT) methods to detect many adulterants and substituted specimens.   According to from the laboratory community, approximately 98 percent of DOT tests are estimated to undergo SVT at the present time.  When SVT cannot specifically identify an adulterant, the employee who provided a compromised specimen will undergo an additional test, this time under direct observation.  A number of States have enacted criminal laws regarding products used to circumvent drug testing and DOT has supported these efforts, as well as Federal legislation.

Collection Facility Oversight

Most motor carriers use service agents to perform the testing program functions.  These are people or organizations such as collection sites, third party administrators, MROs, and substance abuse professionals.  FMCSA reviews the compliance of these entities during the CR process and has found more than 22,000 violations in the past 7 years.  Employers are responsible for meeting the requirements of our drug testing rules, including the procedural rules of Part 40, whether they perform the functions themselves or contract them out.  If a service agent fails to meet a Part 40 requirement, it is the motor carrier that is accountable to FMCSA.

Part 40 gives us an additional tool to address serious problems that we discover in the performance of service agents.  This is the Public Interest Exclusion (PIE) process, based on the Federal government’s suspension and debarment rules.  After appropriate administrative due process, a service agent who is failing to comply in significant ways with Part 40 can be prohibited from working in the drug testing program for DOT-regulated employers for up to five years.  ODAPC has not yet had to issue a PIE and barred someone from working in our program because, when we encounter serious misconduct by a service agent, we inform the agent that a PIE may be considered.  This has caused the service agent to correct the identified problem or to stop serving DOT-regulated employers.  The deterrent presence of the PIE provision can be effective in addressing program deficiencies.

FMCSA’s perception is that collection sites generally comply with most of the key portions of the rules, but may not fully comply with all the rules all the time.  This is generally consistent with what GAO found in its review.  The Department has taken important steps to ensure that the collection process does comply with our rules.  In 2000, Part 40 started requiring initial and refresher training for collectors.  DOT has worked with the drug testing and transportation industries to give special emphasis to collection site integrity.  We have also asked for our inspectors and auditors to pay close attention to collection site issues.  They have done so.

On the ODAPC web site and in personal emails to a number of drug and alcohol testing administrators and laboratories, we have reminded program participants to ensure that collectors whose services they use or manage pay special attention to collection site procedures.  ODAPC also provided English and Spanish versions of the reminders.  In all, 14 major organizations reported that they notified nearly 43,000 service centers, clients, collection sites, and collectors.

OADPC developed the “DOT’s 10 Steps to Collection Site Security” and provided 16” x 20” posters to nearly 25,000 collection sites throughout the U.S.  The Department will continue to emphasize collection site integrity during inspections and audits, our numerous training activities, and speaking engagements.

FUTURE PLANS

As we move forward, FMCSA, in cooperation with ODAPC and the other operating administrations, continues to look for ways to make our highways safer by ensuring that no commercial vehicle driver is driving while impaired.  We continue to refine our drug and alcohol enforcement strategies, including more effectively and efficiently identifying job-hoppers, overseeing collection sites, and pursuing PIEs where appropriate.  We have asked our investigators and State partners to focus on carrier compliance with regulations requiring employers to check with previous employers regarding drug or alcohol use and owner-operator drug and alcohol regulatory compliance.  FMCSA is also exploring the possibilities of using laboratory data as a targeting mechanism for problem drivers and motor carriers.

The FMCSA is in the process of bolstering our drug and alcohol testing compliance program by increasing the training provided to State and Federal enforcement staff.  From the program’s inception, we have had a group of investigators with additional training and expertise in the drug and alcohol testing regulations.  These investigators make up FMCSA’s Drug & Alcohol Technical Assistance Group (TAG).  The TAG members are available to assist any investigation.  Additionally, FMCSA is upgrading the knowledge of drug and alcohol testing procedures among our entire field staff, incorporating a module on drug and alcohol testing procedures into the investigator and auditor training academies, and will soon offer additional training for all current investigators.  We also plan to develop a new Drug and Alcohol Testing Enforcement Course and develop web-based in-service training for State and Federal enforcement staff.

Using the Drug and Alcohol TAG, FMCSA is in the process of improving the information on the FMCSA website regarding Drug and Alcohol Testing requirements.  We are working to make the site more user-friendly for the primary target audiences – motor carriers, drivers, and service agents.  The website will be loaded with user guides on how to implement a DOT drug and alcohol program and a series of outreach brochures, posters, etc., for drivers and employers to improve the awareness of program implementation and to increase their knowledge of the consequences of a refusal or positive test.

Looking to the future, FMCSA will increase the focus on our CSA 2010 initiative.  This will place additional emphasis on drug and alcohol testing compliance and targeted enforcement for those drivers and carriers that choose not to comply.

Finally, FMCSA has close relationships with our DOT, State, and industry partners on drug and alcohol testing issues and continues to develop and enhance these partnerships.  This is critical because our success is dependent on our ability to leverage the available safety resources.

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to discuss the FMCSA Drug and Alcohol Program and what steps we are taking to ensure that commercial vehicle drivers do not drive while impaired.  Removing impaired drivers from our roadways has been a focus of my career during my 29 years with the Indiana State Police and my four years with FMCSA.  Given the size and scope of our responsibilities, FMCSA will continue to find new ways to ensure a comprehensive enforcement program aimed at identifying noncompliant drivers and carriers.

I look forward to working with you to achieve our common goals.  I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.

Making the Nation’s Highways Safer Through Better Commercial Vehicle Operations

STATEMENT OF

JOHN H. HILL
ADMINISTRATOR
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

BEFORE THE

HOUSE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

JULY 11, 2007

 

Good afternoon, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of the Subcommittee.  Thank you for inviting me to testify before you.  I am pleased to describe how the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is working to make the nation’s highways safer through better commercial vehicle operations.  2005 enjoyed one of the lowest large-truck fatality rates in 30 years.  This means that despite more trucks traveling more miles, the proportion of fatalities was down.  In addition, preliminary numbers for 2006 indicate that the number of people killed in commercial motor vehicle (CMV) crashes decreased for the second consecutive year.  There are estimated to be 3.7 percent fewer deaths attributed to crashes involving commercial vehicles in 2006 than in 2005.  However, we know that despite these gains, the drop in overall highway fatalities has not been consistent.

To meet this challenge we are expanding the use of proven strategies while simultaneously developing and implementing new and improved approaches.  We are increasing our effectiveness and efficiency as we continue to coordinate safety strategies with our State partners.  We are working closely with stakeholders from the trucking and motorcoach industries and the committed safety organizations through our newly chartered Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee.

TARGETING HIGH RISK CARRIERS

The FMCSA is committed to saving additional lives on our nation’s highways.  Our approach is risk-based – targeting carriers with poor performance and placing special emphasis on motorcoach companies and carriers registered as hauling hazardous materials.

Identifying motor carriers that pose the greatest risk to the motoring public and applying a vigorous compliance review (CR) and enforcement program are integral parts of the strategy FMCSA and its State partners use to reduce crashes involving CMVs.  Through the use of available highway performance and compliance data, FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Safety Status Measurement System (SafeStat) continues to serve as a valuable tool to identify high-risk motor carriers for prioritization of CR resources.

SafeStat is a reliable tool for identifying high-risk carriers.  FMCSA’s research has shown this conclusively and it has been confirmed by the Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO).  The 2004 OIG report noted that CR results support the ability of SafeStat to identify high risk carriers and in a June 19, 2007, letter to Congressman Thomas Petri (WI), the OIG noted that FMCSA has made improvements in the underlying data quality that supports SafeStat.  In addition, in a June 2007 report on SafeStat, the GAO indicated that SafeStat works approximately twice as well as selecting carriers randomly and, therefore, has value for improving safety.

The GAO has also suggested methods of improving SafeStat.  The Agency appreciates the constructive nature of the GAO recommendations and is examining how to best implement the findings of that review into our targeting system.  FMCSA has been involved in a continuous process of examining the results of SafeStat and studying and implementing improvements to the system since it was originally developed in the mid-1990s.  In 2002, the agency lowered the threshold for identifying high-risk hazardous materials carriers to address the additional risk posed by the materials being transported in these trucks.  We are implementing a change to the targeting system to better identify unsafe passenger carrier operations.

While SafeStat is FMCSA’s primary method of identifying high-risk carriers, it is not the Agency’s only method of identifying unsafe carriers.  FMCSA also conducts CRs in response to complaints received by the Agency, serious crashes, or to support other initiatives such as our current national initiative to conduct CRs of approximately 1,700 unrated and high priority motorcoach companies by the end of 2007.

ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS

The FMCSA partners with the States to enforce commercial truck and motorcoach safety laws through roadside inspections, CRs, and new entrant safety audits.

The FMCSA’s oversight programs are producing results.  In Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, FMCSA and our State partners conducted 15,177 CRs – a 33 percent increase over the number conducted in 2004.  As a result of these CRs, FMCSA initiated 4,195 enforcement actions.  FMCSA found 1,035 companies so deficient that we placed their operations out-of-service.  We know from past analysis that carriers improve their safety operations after a CR.  We estimate that the CRs conducted in 2004 resulted in over 2,700 fewer crashes, approximately 1,900 fewer injuries, and over 100 fewer fatalities.

In addition to conducting reviews of carrier operations, the FMCSA and our State partners conducted almost 3.3 million roadside inspections on vehicles of high risk carriers during FY 2006, a 9 percent increase over 2004.  As a result of these inspections, we placed approximately 220,000 drivers out-of-service until serious violations could be remedied.  We also removed approximately 547,000 unsafe vehicles from our highways.  Again, we know from previous analysis that roadside inspections prevent crashes and save lives.  We estimate that roadside inspections conducted in 2005 resulted in over 18,000 fewer crashes, approximately 13,000 fewer injuries, and approximately 700 fewer fatalities.

In addition to these proven enforcement tools, in 2003 the FMCSA implemented a program to address the safety of new motor carriers entering the industry.  In 2006, FMCSA and our State partners conducted almost 40,000 new entrant safety audits.  This program ensures that all new motor carriers become aware of the safety regulations.  FMCSA has also proposed revisions to strengthen this program; we are analyzing comments to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with our goal that a final rule will be issued in 2008, and ensure that new entrant audits – like CRs and roadside inspections – result in unsafe carriers being removed from service.

The FMCSA relies on enforcement tools provided by Congress.  In FY 2006, we placed 531 carriers out of service for receiving an Unsatisfactory Safety Rating, 943 carriers out of service for failing to pay fines, and one carrier out of service for imminent hazard for a total of 1,475 carriers.  We have also implemented the maximum penalty provisions contained in Section 222 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999.  This section allows FMCSA to assess maximum penalties for carriers that demonstrate a pattern of non-compliance.  In 2006, FMCSA used this authority to assess maximum penalties against 21 carriers and 7 drivers with demonstrated patterns of safety violations.  In addition, we are working to strengthen this program to address recommendations by the Office of the Inspector General and anticipated recommendations from an almost completed audit of our enforcement programs by GAO.

The FMCSA is actively evaluating our enforcement tools and corresponding limitations with an eye toward developing a reauthorization proposal that will continue to strengthen our enforcement posture and ensure that, when appropriate, the agency can take focused action to change unsafe carrier or driver behavior.

DATA QUALITY

The enforcement programs discussed previously generate and rely on safety performance data to target carriers that pose a high crash risk.  Therefore, it is appropriate to discuss what FMCSA has done and will do to ensure that the data we rely upon to direct our resources is as complete, timely, and as accurate as possible.

The FMCSA has been working with States on complete, accurate, and timely reporting of large truck crash and inspection data for several years and has implemented a variety of data quality programs and efforts to improve reporting.  Since the beginning of these efforts, there has been significant improvement in State-reported large truck and bus crash and inspection data.  Specifically, between calendar years 2001 and 2006, large truck crashes reported to FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) database have increased from 109,248 to more than 144,000 annually, an increase of 32 percent.  During this same period, the total number of large truck fatal and injury crashes has actually decreased according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), demonstrating that the increase in crashes shown in the MCMIS database represents more complete and accurate reporting by the States to FMCSA than in the past.

One of the most important aspects of our State Data Quality Program has been the State Safety Data Quality Map, or SSDQ, which displays the performance of individual State crash and inspection reporting efforts according to measures of accuracy, timeliness and completeness of reporting.  Ratings are updated each quarter and individual State performance is portrayed through a color-coded map, with ratings of Green (good progress), Yellow (marginal progress), and Red (improvement needed) based on overall performance.  Between 2004 (the date of inception) and 2007, the number of States achieving “green” on the map has increased from 25 to 40, while the number of States rated as red has been reduced from 12 to 3[1].  Specifically, between 2004 and 2006:

  • The percentage of crashes matched to a motor carrier increased from 87% to 93%;
  • The percentage of crashes reported within 90 days increased from 69% to 89%; and 
  • The percentage of inspections reported within 21 days increased from 80% to 87%.

DataQs is an online system developed by FMCSA to facilitate data correction and to track corrective actions.  DataQs, available since 2004, provides a single web-based location that allows the public and industry to file and monitor challenges concerning Federal and State data released to the public by FMCSA.  Since its inception, 24,393 challenges have been entered into the system and 98% have been resolved.

  • FMCSA conducts on-site visits to individual States to review process information system flows in order to assist States in identifying key problem areas involving collection and reporting.
  • FMCSA offers on-going technical assistance to the States, at no cost, to help them identify, address, and monitor possible errors in the transfer of data from the State files to MCMIS.
  • FMCSA conducts analyses of the Police Accident Report (PAR) forms and makes recommendations on how to improve data collection.
  • FMCSA offers State-specific training on what crash data to collect and how it is coded

Regional Operations Managers are being assigned to States to act as points of contact and to work with, and if necessary assist, the States in monitoring data and performance.

State Safety Data Improvement Program (SaDIP) grant funding is available to help States improve traffic safety records systems, with an emphasis on improving data reported to FMCSA.  FMCSA will award the SAFETEA-LU authorized $3 million in FY 2007 to improve crash and inspection data, but had requests from States for six million dollars.

SAFETY PARTNERSHIPS WITH STATES

As mentioned previously, FMCSA’s efforts to improve commercial vehicle safety are conducted in coordination and partnership with the States.  The States represent a “force multiplier” and maximize the impact of FMCSA programs.  In addition, States have roles in regulating commercial vehicle transportation that make them uniquely able to implement key safety programs.

TACT Programs

SAFETEA-LU authorized Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) grants to be used for traffic enforcement on CMVs without an accompanying safety inspection.  The authority also allows reimbursement of State traffic enforcement activities against non-CMVs when such actions are necessary to improve CMV safety (i.e., cars driving unsafely around trucks).

This new option is consistent with the findings of the FMCSA’s Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS), and related research that have identified driver behavior as the leading factor in crashes.  These studies have also revealed that the non-CMV driver is a causal factor in a majority of CMV/non-CMV crashes.  By expanding MCSAP traffic enforcement authority, FMCSA and its State-partners are able to reach out to a broader population of law enforcement organizations in an effort to improve program delivery and reduce CMV-related fatal crashes.

In cooperation with the NHTSA, we recently piloted the Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks or “TACT” program in the State of Washington.  Working with the State trucking association, troopers conducted a high visibility enforcement campaign to reduce unsafe driving behavior in and around large trucks.  The program included a high profile media campaign to build awareness and educate drivers about the hazards of driving around CMVs.  Combining education and enforcement has been proven successful at increasing seat belt usage and reducing drunk driving.  FMCSA is now applying it to the commercial vehicle safety problem in this country.

The first TACT pilot program was successful in large part due to the cooperative efforts of DOT, State, and local law enforcement agencies that were involved.  The evaluation showed a considerable reduction in unsafe driving behaviors on the designated enforcement corridors.  Based upon TACT’s initial success, FMCSA is expanding the program to States with the highest fatality and crash rates.  TACT is currently underway in Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Kentucky.  Kansas, Missouri, and Ohio are also implementing traffic enforcement programs with many features of the TACT program and 13 other States[2] are conducting traffic enforcement aimed at unsafe behaviors by non-CMVs around trucks and buses.

To assist the States, the FMCSA is printing and disseminating a TACT “How To” guide to State Agencies nationwide.  We are encouraging all MCSAP States to adopt this successful program or some form of non-CMV enforcement allowed by SAFETEA-LU.  FMCSA is also moving forward with development of the TACT State Peer Exchange Network (SPEN).  The purpose of the group is to share best practices and strategies to reduce crashes between passenger vehicles and CMVs.  SPEN will be comprised of States conducting TACT programs currently as well as States with low to moderate crash rates.

Performance and Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM)

PRISM began as a pilot project mandated by Congress under ISTEA in 1991.  The goal was to explore the benefits of using State commercial vehicle registration sanctions as an incentive to improve motor carrier safety.  Congress authorized funding through the TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU to expand PRISM nationally on a voluntary basis.

The FMCSA provides PRISM grant funding to the States primarily to enable each State to establish information system connections among vehicle registration agencies, roadside law enforcement, and FMCSA.  This allows States to check the safety status of motor carriers prior to issuing or renewing International Registration Plan (IRP) license plates and during roadside inspections.  PRISM grant funds are also used to deploy roadside technologies such as bar-code readers that automate the population of data requirements in roadside inspection software and wireless access to our Query Central system for more efficient roadside inspections.

PRISM creates a new Federal-State partnership that improves safety and strengthens Congressionally-mandated enforcement policies such as those related to the consequences of unsatisfactory safety ratings (Section 4009 of TEA-21), failure to meet new entrant requirements, and failure to pay civil penalties (Section 206 of MCSIA). One of the fundamental tenets of the PRISM program is that State vehicle registration agencies will suspend a motor carrier’s IRP license plates in conjunction with an FMCSA order to cease interstate operation and/or deny renewal of IRP license plates to any motor carrier that is prohibited from operating in interstate commerce by FMCSA.

The Federal-State PRISM partnership provides an automated enforcement mechanism to ensure that motor carriers meet the requirements for biennial data updating under Section 217 of MCSIA (Form MCS-150). Put simply, participating State systems automatically check the carriers “MCS-150 date of last update” and deny renewal of IRP license plates if the MCS-150 data of the carrier responsible for the safety of a vehicle will expire (i.e., exceed 24 months) before the new license plate expires.

To date, 45 States plus the District of Columbia have signed grant agreements with the FMCSA to implement the PRISM program and twenty-seven States are presently PRISM capable, with four states in the process of implementation, with fourteen states and DC committed to implementing the program in the near future.  Of critical importance, 23 States now actively exercise their authority to deny, revoke, and or suspend a carrier’s registration, and four states await enabling legislation to impose registration sanctions.

FUTURE FOCUS

As we move forward, the FMCSA will be addressing key priorities to increase safety including:  1) testing our Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 (CSA 2010) initiative, which will provide a new approach to the safety fitness rating – and allowing a broader enforcement exposure to the motor carrier industry; 2) continuing our focus on driver safety in all programs, by conducting even more driver roadside enforcement and inspections in cooperation with our State and local partners; and 3) intensifying our focus on motorcoach safety by prioritizing our MCSAP and Federal activities in this area, while also focusing enforcement efforts on high-risk curbside bus operators.

CSA 2010

The FMCSA strives to improve how it does business.  While our enforcement programs have been successful in improving safety, we recognize that we need to do more if the Department is to meet its safety goals.  With that in mind, FMCSA is nearly midway through development of its CSA 2010 effort, which generates a more comprehensive, effective and efficient approach to carrying out compliance and enforcement programs.  CSA 2010’s goal is to contact more regulated entities through a broader array of enforcement and educational interventions while optimizing FMCSA resources.

The CSA 2010 Operational model that has been developed and will be pilot tested in 4 States during 2008 will measure carrier performance in seven Behavioral Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (known as BASICs).  They are unsafe driving, fatigued driving, driver fitness (training/experience/physical qualifications), drugs/alcohol, vehicle maintenance, improper loading/cargo issues (including hazardous materials violations), and crashes.  FMCSA will use all safety violations to assess carrier safety in these areas, not just a limited list of violations that have been determined to be “critical” or “acute.”  By including all violations in a motor carrier’s safety fitness determination, we will be addressing one of the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB’s) Most Wanted items for FMCSA.

The use of these BASICs will also allow FMCSA to identify and focus its efforts on addressing specific safety problems, and will result in the Agency’s employment of a systematic, progressive set of interventions designed to change unsafe behavior.  Additionally, their use could result ultimately in a carrier being declared “unfit” and placed out-of-service if there is no demonstrated improvement in performance.

Another important feature of this new model is that safety assessments and fitness determinations will be updated monthly based on performance data.  FMCSA will no longer rely solely on the results of an on-site CR to make a safety fitness determination.  This will allow the carrier’s safety fitness status to reflect on-going activity, not a “snapshot” of the operational safety at the time of an on-site review.

Driver Focus

Recent studies, including the LTCCS, continue to emphasize the part that drivers play in crash causation and avoidance.  In the LTCCS, CMV driver action or inaction was determined to be the “critical reason” for the crash in 87% of the crashes where the responsibility for the crash was attributed to the CMV.  In FY 2008, FMCSA will address driver safety knowledge “gaps” found by the National Agenda for Safe Driving, a technical working group of government and private partners.  The working group will hold public listening sessions and a major public conference to define actions that will address these knowledge gaps and obtain stakeholder commitments to partner with FMCSA to act quickly and efficiently on yet to be identified items.  FMCSA will also work with our State partners to ensure that they conduct driver inspections at the roadside as specified in their respective Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans.

Medical Oversight Program

The FMCSA’s focus on drivers also includes initiatives to improve oversight of medical conditions that affect CMV safety.  These initiatives will increase safety by helping to reduce the number of drivers with medical conditions which adversely impact their ability drive safely.  Additionally, NTSB’s Most Wanted List contains several recommendations which will be addressed by these activities.  We currently have three major initiatives under way:

Medical Review Board (MRB)

FMCSA is evaluating all of its medical regulations to ensure that they reflect the most up to date scientific information.  The MRB is a five-member panel of experts, authorized by SAFETEA-LU, who advise FMCSA on medical standards and emerging medical issues. We announced the selection of the MRB members last year and the Board will be holding its fourth public meeting later this month.  Presently, the Board’s agenda includes review of diabetes, cardiovascular issues, and Schedule II controlled substance medications.

National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners

Our second initiative, also supported by SAFETEA-LU, is the rulemaking establishing a National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners.  The Registry will provide a list of medical examiners who are authorized to perform the physical qualification examinations for the more than 6 million truck and motorcoach drivers operating in interstate commerce. Our goal is to require ongoing competency of medical examiners through training, testing, certification and recertification. This will ensure that medical examiners fully understand, and remain competent to perform medical examinations for commercial vehicle drivers.

Merger of the CDL and Medical Certificate

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published by the Agency will merge drivers’ medical information with the CDL data system. Under the new system, a driver’s medical certification would be sent to the State's division of motor vehicles, which would then be required to include on the CDL record that the driver continues to be medically certified.  If a driver’s medical certificate expired, the State would be required to downgrade the CDL until the driver provided proof of his or her medical qualification to operate commercial vehicles in interstate commerce.  Presently, we are analyzing comments made to the NPRM as we finalize the Final Rule.

Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS) Modernization

The modernization of CDLIS required by SAFETEA-LU will enable FMCSA and the States to take advantage of new technological advances and expand CDLIS storage capacity while increasing system performance, responsiveness and adaptability to meet current and future requirements.  Related to this effort is the development of the CDL learner’s permit rule to establish uniform procedures for State issuance of learner’s permits and CDLs, including Social Security Number verification requirements and fraud prevention initiatives.  Publication of the CDL learner’s permit rule will also address the trucking requirements of the SAFE Ports Act of 2006.  Finally, a CDL Task force has been established to take advantage of the knowledge, experiences, and energies of various interest groups to identify ways to improve the effectiveness of the CDL program.

Motorcoach Safety

Several highly visible and tragic incidents underscored for all of us the importance of motorcoach passenger safety.  Even so, we should keep in mind that mile for mile, motorcoaches are the safest form of commercial passenger transportation.  Motorcoaches account for more passenger traffic in the United States than all other commercial modes of transportation combined.  In response to recent motorcoach incidents, FMCSA has increased its motorcoach safety enforcement activities by increasing MCSAP and Federal activities in this area; by improving the method for selecting passenger carriers to inspect; by performing more CRs of motorcoach companies; and by improving training for motorcoach drivers.

In FY 2006 the FMCSA and our State partners conducted over 125,000 bus inspections.  By the end of 2007, we expect to conduct a CR on every motorcoach operator that has not been rated.  In addition, the FMCSA has taken important steps to focus on enforcing regulations that apply to curbside bus operators providing fixed-route service among major cities in the northeast such as New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC.  FMCSA and a coalition of State and local police agencies have formed a strike force performing both roadside inspections and CRs and, where necessary, taking enforcement actions against these companies.  This initiative will continue into 2008.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation for all that the Committee has done in supporting the FMCSA.  In our seven years as an independent modal Agency within DOT, the dedicated women and men of FMCSA and our partners in State and local law enforcement agencies have made substantial progress in reducing fatalities and injuries on our nation’s highways.  Your continued investment in the Agency will enhance these efforts, further increasing safety.  I look forward to working with you to achieve our mutual goals and would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.

[1]In FY 2007, the FMCSA has provided over half a million dollars in MCSAP High Priority Grants to the 3 remaining “red” States to assist in data improvements.

[2] See attached map for complete list of States conducting traffic enforcement aimed at unsafe behaviors by non-commercial vehicles around trucks or buses.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) Safety Oversight Role in Motorcoach Operations

STATEMENT OF

JOHN HILL, ADMINISTRATOR
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT, AND PIPELINES

MARCH 20, 2007

 

Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today to discuss the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) safety oversight role in motorcoach operations.  I am pleased to discuss with you FMCSA’s programs that will achieve our goal of improving bus safety on our nation’s highways.

Mr. Chairman, FMCSA was conceived out of the need to achieve stronger commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety – it is our mandate.  More than that, our Agency consists of dedicated professionals to whom safety is the highest priority.  Toward that goal, FMCSA is working to reduce the loss of life on our nation’s highways.

Mile for mile, motorcoaches are one of the safest forms of commercial passenger transportation.  For the last 10 calendar years, there has been a yearly average of 22.7 occupant-related fatalities.  Approximately 3,700 interstate motorcoach companies are registered in our database to operate over 34,000 motorcoaches in the United States and approximately 100,000 motorcoach drivers have Commercial Driver’s Licenses (CDLs) with passenger endorsements.  This figure does not include school bus drivers who have CDLs with passenger endorsements, the vast majority of whom are not subject to most of our safety regulations.   

RECENT MOTORCOACH CRASHES

On Friday, March 2, we all observed with horror the scenes from the motorcoach crash in Atlanta, Georgia, in which seven people were killed.  Five student passengers and the motorcoach driver and his wife lost their lives when the chartered motorcoach transporting a baseball team from Ohio’s Blufton University to Florida plunged off an overpass onto an expressway below.  Preliminary investigations seem to indicate that the motorcoach driver mistook a High Occupancy Vehicle exit ramp for a traffic lane, and did not stop at the top of the ramp. 

The bus company involved in the crash, Executive Coach Luxury Travel Inc., has a satisfactory safety rating from a 2001 compliance review.  More recently, 11 vehicle inspections and 5 driver inspections were performed during the 12 months prior to the crash, resulting in zero out-of-service violations.  On February 23, 2007, just one week prior to the crash, the Public Utility Commission of Ohio inspected 5 buses at the company’s terminal, including the one involved in the crash.  No violations were found on the vehicle during the inspection.  The driver involved in the crash relieved the previous driver from driving and boarded the bus at approximately 4:30 AM, only one hour prior to the crash.  Preliminary investigation shows the driver involved was not in violation of the hours-of-service regulations.  Please be assured that we will continue to work with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) as it finalizes its investigation and issues its findings.

NATIONAL MOTORCOACH SAFETY PROGRAM

FMCSA is and has always been committed to the safe transportation of passengers on our Nation’s highways.  Passenger safety continues as one of the highest priorities within FMCSA and we continue to increase our focus on this area.  The Agency has established a National Motorcoach Safety Program that emphasizes six areas:  (1) increasing the number of motorcoach compliance reviews (CRs), which are investigations of a company’s safety practices; (2) ensuring motorcoach companies have a higher priority within FMCSA’s compliance review prioritization system, known as SafeStat; (3) establishing formal motorcoach inspection programs within all States; (4) improving the collection and analyses of safety data; (5) reducing motorcoach fires; and (6) expediting safety audits of new entrant passenger carriers.  Addressing each of these areas is essential to improving passenger vehicle safety.  In addition, I will discuss the following two major initiatives: (1) our national initiative to address unrated and high priority motorcoach operations; and (2) FMCSA’s Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 (CSA 2010) initiative.    

Motorcoach Company Compliance Reviews 

FMCSA is increasing the number of compliance reviews conducted on motorcoach companies.  In FY 2005, FMCSA and our State partners conducted 457 motorcoach CRs, surpassing our established goal of 375 by 22%.  Our goal for FY 2006 was to conduct 450 CRs and we conducted more than 600 CRs on motorcoach companies, an increase of more than one-third.   

Augmenting these efforts is one of the two major new initiatives.  Last month, FMCSA established the National Initiative to Address Unrated and High Priority Motorcoach Operations, a project to expand our Agency’s contact with motorcoach operators who appear to run safe operations.  We expect to visit approximately 1,600 companies as part of this initiative before the end of 2007. 

Passenger Carrier Enhancements to the SafeStat System

The availability of motorcoach safety data is more limited than that of property carriers due to fewer driver and vehicle safety inspections and a fewer total number of CRs.  However, we believe that bus companies deserve more careful program attention and dedicated enforcement resources because they transport people rather than cargo.  As a result, FMCSA will apply more stringent safety standards for passenger carriers through a reform of our risk pointer systems.  With this change, we will ensure that passenger carriers receive higher scrutiny through more frequent on-site reviews. 

Motorcoach Inspections

While all States conduct motorcoach inspections, not every State has a formal motorcoach inspection program.  Beginning in FY 2007, FMCSA requires State agencies that receive Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) grant funds to include a bus inspection program in their Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans (CVSPs), which describe the State’s inspection and enforcement activities for the coming year. 

FMCSA has also initiated a series of motorcoach inspection and CR strike force activities to increase the attention and focus on passenger vehicle safety.  The most recent inspection strike force was conducted from November 13 to 25, 2006, by FMCSA’s Eastern division offices and our MCSAP State partners.  The strike force spanned 14 States from Maine to Virginia and included participation by Federal and State personnel including over 22 law enforcement agencies.  Thanks to the commitment of our Federal staff and our many State and local police agencies, more than 1,300 safety inspections were conducted on passenger vehicles and drivers.

The increased activities generated by the strike force resulted in more than 26,000 bus inspections during FY 2006, double the previous fiscal year.  The additional data enables FMCSA to better identify poorly performing passenger carriers for a CR by increasing the amount of passenger carrier safety data entered into Federal and State databases.  In addition, FMCSA has encouraged States to increase the number of CRs they perform on motorcoach operations.   

Improved Safety Data

The use of safety data is critical to properly target our resources.  In the past three years, there have been significant improvements in the timeliness and quantity of our motorcoach safety data.  This is due in large part to the increase in motorcoach inspections resulting from inclusion of bus safety inspection programs in the State CVSPs and the increased emphasis on inspection and compliance review strike forces.  As a part of the Agency’s national initiative to address unrated and high priority motorcoach operations, safety investigators are confirming data through contacts and personal visits to bus carriers.

FMCSA is also conducting a Bus Crash Causation Study to determine the reasons for and the factors contributing to serious bus crashes.  The data collection for this study will be completed this May and the final report is due in December 2007.    

Motorcoach Fires

Another critical aspect of our safety program relates to the problem of motorcoach fires.  It is vital that we gather and evaluate information on the causes, frequency, and severity of bus and motorcoach fires and analyze bus fire data to measure the effectiveness of bus fire prevention.  FMCSA is also taking immediate action to address the collection and analysis of bus fire data.  FMCSA recently issued a statement to FMCSA field offices and our MCSAP partners to re-emphasize our position that fires that occur in CMVs, including buses, while they are operated on our highways must be classified as CMV crashes. 

NOTE:  INSERT FROM CHANDLER ON NATIONAL BUS PROGRAM:

New Entrant Passenger Carriers

Each year, approximately 900 new entrant passenger carriers register with FMCSA. 

Research has shown that new entrant motor carriers have significantly more non-compliance issues and a higher crash rate than more established motor carriers.  FMCSA has implemented a new entrant program policy placing greater priority on the safety of passenger carriers.  New entrant passenger carriers are now subject to an on-site safety audit within 9 months of beginning operations instead of the statutorily required 18 months for other motor carriers.  Where we have indicators of safety problems, Mr. Chairman, we go in to the company immediately.  In addition we have published a proposed rule to strengthen new entrant program standards for all motor carriers including a provision for bus companies regarding verification and education about compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on February 20, 2007.

CURBSIDE CARRIERS

FMCSA has taken important steps in enforcing regulations that apply to curbside bus operators that provide fixed-route service among major cities in the northeast such as New York, NY, Boston, MA, Philadelphia, PA, and Washington, DC.  In December 2003, FMCSA organized a task force to examine these companies.  Some were providing for-hire fixed-route bus transportation without proper operating authority and/or adequate insurance.  This marked the first time FMCSA had organized a task force to address a specific sector of the passenger carrier industry.  In 2006, FMCSA identified 24 curbside bus companies that are domiciled in the Northeast corridor that operate approximately 200 motorcoaches.  As of March 2007, eighteen of these curbside companies are assigned a satisfactory safety rating, three are assigned conditional ratings, two companies went out of business, and one is not rated.  FMCSA plans to conduct a compliance review on the unrated company in the near future.

In October 2005, FMCSA organized a bus inspection strike force in the Northeast corridor that resulted in 403 inspections.  Many of these inspections were conducted on curbside bus companies.  In December 2005, FMCSA’s Passenger Technical Advisory Group, a specialized group of field investigators, conducted a bus company CR strike force along the Northeast Corridor.  The strike force conducted CRs on 14 bus companies in the States of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and in the District of Columbia.  Eight of these companies were curbside carriers.  Of the CRs conducted on these curbside carriers, six resulted in satisfactory safety ratings and three in enforcement actions, which can occur simultaneously with a satisfactory safety rating.  The most common violations were related to drug and alcohol testing.  FMCSA has found that some small bus companies do not comply with drug and alcohol testing regulations because this testing is sometimes regarded as unnecessary if the company owner knows the driver personally.  During the CRs, our investigators documented the compliance status with ADA regulations for over-the-road buses.  Documentation was forwarded to the Department of Justice for further action if necessary.  FMCSA has found the use of multi-jurisdictional strike forces to be an effective tool in identifying and apprehending unsafe carriers.

Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 (CSA 2010)    

Since the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 created FMCSA as an independent agency within the Department of Transportation, the motor carrier population has increased steadily with an expected doubling of freight volumes by 2020.  At the same time, FMCSA’s programmatic responsibilities have increased, including implementation of Congressional mandates such as the New Entrant Program, and increased emphasis on ensuring transportation security.   

While FMCSA’s compliance and enforcement programs have been demonstrated to be effective, FMCSA’s compliance review program is resource-intensive and reaches only a small percentage of motor carriers.  To improve our reach into motor carriers, FMCSA has developed an improved safety oversight process called Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 or CSA 2010, which is the Agency’s plan to develop an improved operational model for its primary compliance and enforcement operations.  The CSA 2010 initiative, which includes our State partners, will reshape how FMCSA approaches its safety mission.  Its goal is to develop and implement more effective and efficient ways for FMCSA and its State partners to reduce commercial motor vehicle crashes, fatalities, and injuries.  Key features of CSA 2010 are (1) more contact with more carriers and drivers, (2) improved data to better identify high-risk carriers and drivers, and (3) a wider range of interventions beyond safety audits and CRs to address high safety risk behavior earlier.

Collaboration with Other Agencies

Finally, our bus safety program involves collaboration with numerous other Federal agencies and State partners, more so than most FMCSA programs.  FMCSA works cooperatively with other Federal agencies to improve the overall safety of motorcoach transportation.  We have a mutually beneficial working relationship with the Department of Justice regarding ADA compliance and enforcement.  We have collaborated with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on issues related to the nature and causes of bus fires.  We are currently involved with the Federal Transit Administration in exploring the development of a bus inspection program for transit buses.  Finally, we have assisted the Transportation Security Administration with administering grants to bus companies to improve security within the industry.

CONCLUSION

Whether it be a college student boarding a bus for a summer cross-country trip, a senior citizens’ group traveling by charter bus to see the Grand Canyon, or a class trip to Washington, D.C., it is our duty to ensure our passenger carriers provide safe transportation.  The traveling public expects motorcoach transportation to be fatality free – the loss of one passenger’s life is unacceptable.  Mr. Chairman, during my tenure at FMCSA I have worked hard to accomplish the goal of increased safety for our nation’s traveling public.  I know the thousands of State and local law enforcement officers in your Districts are also dedicated to improving highway safety.  Thank you for giving me the opportunity to outline the work FMCSA is doing to make this segment of transportation safer. I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for demonstrating a strong safety oversight in the transportation of our country’s bus passengers.  I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Aviation Security: Are We Truly Protected?

STATEMENT OF

FRANKLIN HATFIELD,
DIRECTOR OF SYSTEM OPERATIONS SECURITY FOR THE
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

ON

AVIATION SECURITY; ARE WE TRULY PROTECTED?

OCTOBER 16, 2007.

Chairwoman Jackson-Lee, Congressman Lungren, Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to appear before you this afternoon to discuss the role of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in supporting the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) response to aviation security threats and incidents.  I want to assure the Subcommittee that FAA and TSA are aligned and work very closely together in terms of understanding and implementing our respective roles in responding to aviation security threats.  The FAA supports TSA through a broad range of standing mechanisms, some of which are continuous in nature, and some of which are activated in response to an identified threat.  FAA’s mission is aviation safety and efficiency.  FAA supports TSA’s aviation security mission.  Accordingly, we work with TSA, the Department of Defense (DoD), and other key partners to effectively respond to any potential threat without compromising the safety of the National Airspace System (the NAS) and while mitigating impacts of system efficiency.

The FAA is uniquely qualified, trained, and equipped to operate the NAS and manage the nation’s airspace.  This is why FAA retains control of the airspace, even when security incidents arise.  While other entities have missions and skill sets that are essential to responding to security threats, the FAA’s understanding of the complexity of the NAS makes it uniquely suited to recognizing aviation threats and identifying the options available based on the facts of a given situation without compromising operational safety and unduly impacting NAS efficiency and the nation’s economy.

As security has become a greater focus of managing air traffic, and responsibility for transportation security rests with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), it is helpful to understand the legislative history of why the FAA was given and retains operational control of the airspace.  The FAA was created almost 50 years ago in 1958 to provide a centralized focus for aviation, replacing an ineffective system of diffused authorities that had evolved over time.  Prior to 1958, the functions of the FAA were splintered, with the Civil Aeronautics Authority (under the Department of Commerce) possessing day-to-day air traffic control responsibilities; the Civil Aeronautics Board possessing accident investigation and safety regulatory responsibilities; and an Airways Modernization Board having the responsibility for planning and developing a system of air navigation facilities.  On top of that, there was an inter-agency Air Coordinating Committee which reviewed all matters involving use of the airspace.  This approach to managing the NAS was clearly inefficient and ineffectual.

The legislative history of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (FAAct) makes it clear that Congress wanted one independent agency with “plenary authority” over the nation’s airspace.  The FAA Act was intended to address two fundamental deficiencies in the Federal Government’s aviation responsibilities, one of which was a “lack of clear statutory authority for centralized airspace management.”  When it was unclear which civilian agency or the military had authority over air traffic, airspace and other aviation safety issues, the confusion led to aviation accidents, including mid-air collisions.  The current statutory framework for the Administrator’s airspace authority and the accompanying legislative history confirm that the FAA continues to be the sole authority for airspace management, air traffic regulatory authority, and use of the airspace.

To more fully understand how FAA supports the security responsibilities of the TSA and other agencies on a daily basis and in response to a perceived threat, I will review the communications and technological initiatives that are currently in place and how they work.  I will also briefly summarize the ongoing government exercises to ensure that all the requisite individuals throughout government know what is expected of them should a crisis arise.

Communications

In the aftermath of 9/11, the FAA established the Domestic Events Network (DEN) – a continuous, twenty-four hour a communications capability that includes over a hundred agency partners.  Through the DEN, agencies monitor ongoing activity in the National Airspace System (NAS) along with their respective areas of expertise to identify anomalies to determine whether they could pose a threat and to coordinate operational responses to defeat any such threats.  The DEN enables all of the key aviation security stakeholders to connect the dots and ensure that responses reflect the risk-based decisions of the Government.  It is a first line of defense that provides ongoing information sharing on a real-time basis.  For example, FAA manages day-to-day operations in the NAS.  Based on information provided by controllers, our watch officer may use the DEN to alert TSA and other partners about aircraft that are flying where they shouldn’t be or aircraft that are not responding to controllers’ attempts to contact them.  In the vast majority of cases, the identified aircraft turn out not to be a security threat, but providing early information to the DEN gives other parts of the government the opportunity to input their areas of expertise in order to provide a more complete picture of what may or may not be happening.  The level of interest a flight receives would obviously be determined through shared information about the situation, triggering higher levels of scrutiny as appropriate.

In addition to the DEN, the FAA supports the TSA in a variety of operational elements, including the Freedom Center (formerly known as the Transportation Security Operations Center (TSOC)) in Herndon, Virginia.  The Freedom Center is staffed with TSA personnel as well as representatives from various partner agencies, including the FAA, which has air traffic control specialists assigned to the facility’s National Capital Region Coordination Center (NCRCC).  If an incident arises, the FAA personnel are immediately available to provide air navigation services related input to the interagency response decisions, including information on flight behavior (e.g., flight path and communication with air traffic control (ATC)); aircraft registration; pilot history; and critical safety factors such as the FAA’s ability to safely divert the aircraft to alternate landing locations while mitigating potential threats.  These personnel also are able to leverage the FAA’s ATC capabilities to communicate with the suspect flight and provide security driven instructions.

Should the situation warrant, TSA can activate a bridge telephone conversation with high ranking officials throughout DHS.  This will permit DHS senior officials to immediately understand the situation at hand in order to make informed, coordinated decisions from the top for their immediate implementation.  Usually, if this bridge is activated, the FAA Administrator’s representative will immediately be joined to the network discussion.  In this manner, the merits of different options can be discussed, informed decisions can be made, and implementation of those decisions can occur expeditiously. 

It is important to understand that the range of potential scenarios that may unfold means that a standard protocol or checklist is neither and optimal or practical solution. When a problem is identified, the facts of any given situation will dictate how the situation is handled and what decisions get made.  For example, if it is discovered that a passenger enroute to the United States is on the no-fly list, the decision of where and/or whether to divert the flight could be impacted by the actions of the passenger in question.  Is the passenger exhibiting signs of anxiety or restlessness?  Or is the passenger sound asleep? The specific facts around the situation could lead to different conclusions, different decisions and consequently, different results.  The important thing is that the conclusions and decisions are made at the appropriate level of government with all the players in the decision making process basing those decisions on the same coordinated, integrated, real-time information.

These means of communicating have proven to be very effective in ensuring the level of response is appropriate to the threat at hand, while avoiding unduly impacting the nation’s aviation system, which is already the most complex and busy system in the world, and creating unwanted economic consequences.

Technology

In addition to effective inter-agency communication, new and better technology is also an essential tool in the war against terror.  The FAA supports TSA through sharing technology.  For example, FAA provides the Traffic Station Display (TSD) system at key facilities operated by TSA and other partners.  While TSD was only designed to support air traffic management activities, the system’s ability to share situational information reduced the potential for miscommunication or misunderstanding among agencies sharing information, which, past incidents have demonstrated, is essential in reacting to developing situations appropriately.

We are actively working with TSA now both in the short and long term on new, shared and interoperable technological platforms, which will support TSA’s aviation security responsibilities.  We are also cooperating with TSA on longer range plans through the FAA’s Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), which is currently working to integrate security capabilities into the architecture for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). 

Joint Planning/Coordination Groups

The FAA and TSA also work in close partnership through a variety of interagency planning groups.  For example, the FAA and TSA co-chair an interagency airspace procedures working group that meets every week to discuss, resolve and ensure that positive communication and coordination continues between all agencies.  We co-chair an interagency working group working on improving the Government’s ability to counter and respond to Man Portable Air Defense System (MANPADS) threats posed by terrorists.  We partner on event specific task forces such as those established to protect National Special Security Events (NSSE) such as the recent UN General Assembly.  These are just a few examples of the many ongoing inter-agency efforts designed to optimize our nation’s security.

Exercises

Improved communication and technology is further enhanced by regular joint TSA-FAA as well as national level, Government wide exercises.  These exercises, which are built around various threat scenarios identified by the Intelligence Community and/or real world events (e.g., the August 2006 UK terror plot), enable the FAA and TSA to explore and refine our cooperation at all levels ranging from policy decisions to tactical operations.  The FAA and TSA senior officials regularly conduct exercises led by each agency’s Administrators.  The last such exercise, held earlier this year in April, enabled us to explore and significantly clarify how we would work together to effectively respond to a terrorist attack premised on the UK plot scenario, in which the terrorists intended to blow up flights from Heathrow bound for the U.S.  

In addition to these bilateral exercises, we participate in partnership with TSA in broader, Government wide exercises such as Top Officials 4 (TOPOFF 4), which is being conducted this week.  TOPOFF 4 will help the participating agencies identify gaps and strengthen cooperation on responses to terrorist attacks using Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDD) or “dirty bombs”. 

In conclusion, the FAA is committed to supporting fully TSA in its efforts to improve aviation security.  While we continually look to refine and improve these efforts, I am confident that both agencies agree that our working relationship is a strong one. 

This is the conclusion of my prepared statement.  I will be happy to answer your questions at this time.

The Security of Our Nation's Passenger and Freight Railroad Network

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF

MICHAEL T. HALEY,
DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL,
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
 AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION,
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HEARING ON

UPDATE ON FEDERAL RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SECURITY EFFORTS

FEBRUARY 6, 2007

Testimony of

Michael T. Haley,
Deputy Chief Counsel,
Federal Railroad Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation,

before the

Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection
Committee on Homeland Security,
U.S. House of Representatives

February 6, 2007

 

Chairwoman Jackson Lee, Ranking Member Lungren, and other members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to testify, on behalf of the Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), about the security of our Nation's passenger and freight railroad network and the efforts that the Department of Transportation (DOT) is making to enhance rail safety and rail security, in support of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  FRA’s primary mission is to promote the safety of the U.S. railroad industry and to reduce the number and severity of accidents and incidents arising from railroad operations.  Our railroad safety mission necessarily includes our involvement in railroad security issues.  DHS and its Transportation Security Administration (TSA) have primary responsibility for transportation security, with FRA providing support in the railroad sector.  FRA works closely with TSA and the railroad industry on a daily basis in addressing railroad safety issues that involve security, participates in the Government Coordinating Council for Rail, and contributes its expertise to the implementation of Executive Order 13416:  Strengthening Surface Transportation Security, including providing input for the National Infrastructure Protection Plan and Sector Specific Plans, as well as the National Strategy for Transportation Security.

My testimony today will provide some background on FRA’s railroad safety program, describe the role that FRA plays in railroad security, and discuss railroad safety and security initiatives.  We stand ready to work with the Subcommittee in furthering the security of our Nation’s railroad network. 

Overview of the Railroad Industry and its Safety Record

The U.S. railroad network is a vital link in the Nation’s transportation system and is critical to the economy, national defense, and public health.  Passenger and freight railroads operate over 170,000 route miles of track and employ over 232,000 workers.  Demand for both freight and intercity and commuter railroads continues to grow.  The rail system is diverse and expansive.  Security risks are inherent in its supporting infrastructure, as well as in the people and products moving through it.  Most of the larger railroads have their own police force, and they are supplemented by State and local law enforcement. 

Amtrak, the Alaska Railroad Corporation, and commuter railroads provide passenger rail service to more than 500 million passengers yearly.  Passenger operators face many challenges in their efforts to provide a secure public transportation environment.  By definition, the systems are open, providing numerous points of access and egress leading to high passenger turnover and making them difficult to monitor effectively.  Amtrak, for example, operates as many as 300 trains per day serving over 500 stations in 46 States, and Amtrak trains use tracks owned by freight railroads except for operations in the Northeast Corridor and in Michigan. 

Privately-owned freight railroads connect industries and businesses with each other across the country and (through our ports) with markets overseas, moving 42 percent of all intercity freight, measured in ton-miles, including 67 percent of the coal used by electric utilities to produce power, and chemicals used in manufacturing and water purification.  Seven Class I railroads haul over 90 percent of the rail cargo in the U.S., with the remaining 10 percent being transported by 30 regional railroads and over 500 local railroads.  Typically, railroads move about 1.7 to 1.8 million carloads of hazardous materials (hazmat) yearly, with roughly 105,000 of these carloads being toxic inhalation hazard (TIH) materials, such as chlorine and anhydrous ammonia.  Over 64 percent of TIH materials are currently transported by rail. 

The railroads have an outstanding record in moving all goods safely.  See statistical analysis at Appendix A.  The vast majority of hazardous materials shipped by rail every year arrive safely and without incident, and train accidents involving a release of hazmat that causes death are infrequent and rare, even while rail traffic volumes have increased steadily.  As discussed below, DOT has an aggressive and comprehensive action plan to address the root causes of hazmat accidents, to examine and improve the integrity of rail tank cars used to transport hazmat, and to improve the railroads’ hazmat security plans.  See summary of the status of implementing FRA’s National Rail Safety Action Plan at Appendix B.  In addition, DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) annually provides grant funds to States and Indian tribes to assist in the development, improvement, and implementation of hazmat emergency response plans, and to train emergency responders to respond to hazmat accidents and incidents; details on this program are contained in PHMSA’s Web site (hazmat.dot.gov). 

Maintaining a safe and secure railroad transportation system is essential, and safety and security issues are being jointly addressed by the industry, DOT, and TSA.       

FRA’s Railroad Safety Program

FRA is the DOT agency charged with carrying out the Federal railroad safety laws.  The laws provide FRA, as the Secretary’s delegate, with very broad authority over every area of railroad safety.  In exercising that authority, the agency has issued and enforces a wide range of railroad safety regulations.  Rail safety and security are interrelated, and FRA considers security concerns when developing rules.  For example, FRA’s January 2002 final rule barring most extraterritorial dispatching of U.S. railroad operations addresses the agency’s concerns about the security of foreign dispatching facilities.  Similarly, FRA’s rule on passenger train emergency preparedness, discussed more fully below, requires carriers to prepare plans that deal with criminal as well as accidental events.  While FRA’s rules are focused on the safety of railroad operations, they necessarily have some bearing on security.  For example, a railroad inspector performing an inspection required by an FRA safety regulation could potentially uncover a hazardous condition that was intentionally caused by terrorist activity.  Similarly, Federal passenger and freight equipment standards are intended to ensure that the equipment can withstand forces of derailments and collisions, whether caused by accidents or deliberate acts, thereby helping to protect passengers, employees, and surrounding communities.   

In addition, FRA enforces in the rail mode of transportation the Hazardous Materials Regulations, which are promulgated by PHMSA.  These regulations include requirements that railroads and other transporters of hazmat, as well as shippers, have and adhere to security plans and also train their employees involved in offering, accepting, or transporting hazmat on both safety and security matters, as discussed more fully below. 

In May 2005, DOT and FRA announced the National Rail Safety Action Plan, a blueprint to comprehensively address critical safety issues facing the railroad industry with the following strategy:

  • Target the most frequent, highest-risk causes of train accidents;
  • Focus FRA’s oversight and inspection resources on areas of greatest concern; and
  • Accelerate research efforts that have the potential to mitigate the largest risks.

FRA’s plan includes initiatives in several areas:  reducing human factor-caused train accidents (the largest category of train accidents); acting to address the serious problem of fatigue among railroad operating employees; improving track safety; improving emergency preparedness and enhancing hazmat safety, including evaluating and improving the integrity of tank cars used to transport hazmat; strengthening FRA’s safety compliance program; and improving highway-rail grade crossing safety.  One of the primary elements of the Action Plan is the implementation of a National Inspection Plan, which uses sophisticated trend analysis to ensure that FRA is properly allocating its inspectors so that they are directing their efforts on areas of greatest safety concern.  A summary of the steps FRA has taken in implementing the Action Plan is attached to my statement. 

Though the Action Plan is focused on rail safety, rail security will also be improved.  In particular, enhancements to hazmat safety and emergency preparedness will result in enhancements to rail security. 

The Security Role of FRA and Other DOT Agencies Before and After September 11  

FRA’s involvement in railroad security predates the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.  From October 1995 (when a deliberate act of vandalism caused a fatal Amtrak derailment near Hyder, Arizona) through March 2006 (when the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 was enacted), FRA helped develop, and worked with Congress to secure the enactment of, Federal criminal legislation to deter and punish more effectively terrorist attacks against railroads and mass transportation systems.  See 18 U.S.C. § 1992.  Additionally, in 1998 FRA issued a regulation requiring passenger railroads to prepare, and secure FRA approval of, plans to address emergencies, including security threats, to train employees on the plans, and to conduct emergency simulation drills, as noted above and discussed more fully below.  In coordination with DHS, FRA will be exploring leveraging the National Labor College, George Meany Training Campus, to assist in providing security awareness training for railroad employees who are not receiving security training under FRA’s emergency preparedness regulation or PHMSA’s security regulation.  FRA also issued comprehensive safety standards for passenger equipment in 1999, including requirements for crashworthiness, fire safety, and emergency systems that help protect against accidental events as well as deliberate acts.  See 49 CFR Part 238.

Since 9/11, FRA has been actively engaged in the railroad industry’s response to the terrorist threat.  The railroads have developed their own security plans, and FRA has worked with the railroads, rail labor, and law enforcement personnel to develop the Railway Alert Network, which permits timely distribution of information and intelligence on security issues.  Working with DOT’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA), FRA has participated in security risk assessments on commuter railroads, and we have conducted security risk assessments of Amtrak as well.  FRA’s security director works on a daily basis with government agencies and the railroad industry to facilitate communications on security issues, and also participates in security training, reviews security plans, and performs other activities to promote rail security.  For example, in 2007, FRA intends to conduct at least 15 security training sessions for rail labor organizations, as well as four sessions at the FBI Academy on railroad security and emergency response for law enforcement personnel.       

In September 2004, DOT and DHS entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) concerning their respective roles on security issues.  The MOU notes that DHS has primary responsibility for security in all modes of transportation but also recognizes that DOT plays a supporting role, providing technical assistance and assisting DHS when possible with the implementation of its security policies.  The MOU reflects the agencies’ shared commitment to a systems risk-based approach and to development of practical solutions, recognizing that each agency brings core competencies, legal authorities, resources, and expertise to the railroad transportation mission.  The MOU requires early coordination between the parties on the development of regulations affecting security.  Separate annexes have been signed concerning the implementation of the Homeland Security Council’s recommendations concerning TIH materials, and concerning the day-to-day coordination between FRA and TSA, FTA and TSA, and PHMSA and TSA on security matters. 

The FRA-TSA annex provides for close cooperation between the two agencies on  their programs and activities, including regulations affecting railroad security, legislation, research and development, inspection activities, and the response to threats to railroad security in order to maximize passenger and freight railroad security while minimizing disruptions to railroad operations to the extent practicable.  The agreement provides that if an FRA inspector observes a significant security issue, the information will be provided to TSA and the railroad; similarly, if a TSA inspector observes a significant rail safety issue, the information will be provided to FRA and the railroad.  FRA has one full-time employee addressing rail security matters, and all of our 71 hazmat inspectors and specialists, along with 17 State inspectors, devote a portion of their time to reviewing railroad and rail shipper security plans for compliance with PHMSA’s hazmat security regulations discussed below.

FRA, FTA, and PHMSA have assisted DHS and TSA in the preparation of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan issued in June, 2006, and have actively supported DHS and TSA’s efforts to develop Sector-Specific Plans for critical infrastructure protection, as required by Executive Order 13416. 

Freight Railroad Security

Freight railroads have voluntarily developed and adopted security plans based on comprehensive risk analyses, and the national intelligence community’s best practices, that address the security not only of hazmat but of freight in general.  The Association of American Railroads (AAR) has established guidance for the major freight railroads in the form of a model strategic security plan. The railroad industry has also developed a detailed protocol (AAR Circular OT-55-I) on recommended railroad operating practices for transportation of high-risk hazardous materials (including TIH materials).  FRA, PHMSA, and TSA have jointly worked with the railroad industry to build upon the railroads’ security efforts through vulnerability assessments, development of voluntary Security Action Items, and rulemakings.  Additionally, FRA has arranged a conference under 49 U.S.C. § 333 (“Section 333”) to permit railroads and chemical shippers to discuss routing options for the movement of TIH materials, as explained more fully below. 

A special focus for FRA and DOT, collectively, is the security of hazmat transported by rail.  A major initiative has been PHMSA’s March 2003 regulation requiring each shipper and carrier of significant quantities (placardable amounts) of hazmat to adopt and comply with a security plan.  See 49 CFR § 172.800 et seq.  Under the PHMSA regulation, security plans must include an assessment of security risks and appropriate countermeasures or mitigation strategies, or both, to address those risks.  The plans must, at a minimum, address three specific areas:  the security of company personnel; unauthorized access to company property; and the security of hazmat shipped or transported by the company from its origin to its destination.  To assist railroads that transport hazmat and shippers that offer hazmat for transportation by rail to comply with this regulation, particularly small- and medium-sized companies, PHMSA developed a program on how to write and implement security plans for their companies.

FRA recognizes that railroad and shipper employees’ awareness and understanding of the PHMSA regulation and procedures governing the safe and secure transportation of hazmat shipments are critical.  Therefore, PHMSA’s regulation provides for safety and security training for employees engaged in the transportation of hazmat.  Specifically, each shipper and carrier of significant quantities of hazmat is also required to conduct two types of security training for its employees:  security awareness training that provides an awareness of risks associated with hazmat transportation and methods designed to enhance hazmat transportation security, and in-depth security training concerning the company’s PHMSA-required security plan and its implementation.  These training requirements are also recurrent; employees must receive the required training at least every three years.  To date, FRA personnel have reviewed more than 6,105 security plans (including plans for shippers by rail and the plans for all Class I freight railroad carriers) and conducted 4,054 inspections for compliance with the security training requirements.  Moreover, FRA’s security director is currently working with the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association to provide hazmat security training and conduct security reviews at approximately 125 short line railroads in 2007.

In April 2004, DHS and DOT took specific actions to improve the security of rail shipments of TIH materials.  As part of this initiative, DHS and DOT, in cooperation with the railroads, are assessing the vulnerabilities of High Threat Urban Areas (HTUAs) through which TIH materials move by rail in significant quantity.  These assessments helped result in the railroads agreeing to voluntarily implement 27 Security Action Items designed to improve the security of rail movements of TIH materials.  The Action Items address system security and access control (i.e., practices affecting the security of railroads and their property), as well as en-route security (the actual movement and handling of railcars containing TIH materials), particularly in HTUAs.  Implementation of the first 24 Action Items had begun when they were announced in June 2006, and implementation of the remaining three Action Items dealing with HTUAs had also been initiated when they were announced on November 21, 2006.

In August 2004, DOT and TSA published a notice and request for comments in the FederalRegister asking for input on aspects of TIH rail shipments, the DOT security program requirement, and the need for additional regulation.  Following review and consideration of the comments received, PHMSA, in consultation with FRA and TSA, published a notice of proposed rulemaking on December 21, 2006, to revise current requirements for the safe and secure rail transportation of hazmat.  See 71 FR 76833.  Likewise, TSA concurrently proposed complementary enhancements to rail security requirements.  See 71 FR 76852.  Specifically, PHMSA’s proposal would require railroads to—

  • compile annual data on specified hazmat rail shipments;
  • use the data annually to analyze safety and security risks along rail transportation routes where those materials are transported and one possible alternative to each route;
  • utilize the analyses in selecting the safest and most secure, commercially practicable routes the carrier is authorized to operate over in transporting these materials;
  • address the security risks associated with shipments delayed in transit or temporarily stored in transit as part of their security plans;
  • notify consignees if there is a significant, unplanned delay affecting the delivery of certain types of hazardous material;
  • work with shippers and consignees to minimize the time a rail car containing certain types of hazardous materials is placed on a track awaiting pick-up or delivery or transfer from one carrier to another;
  • notify storage facilities and consignees when rail cars containing certain types of hazardous materials are delivered to a storage or consignee facility; and
  • conduct visual security inspections at ground level of rail cars containing hazardous materials to inspect for signs of tampering or the introduction of an improvised explosive device (IED).

PHMSA and FRA have scheduled two public hearings to obtain oral comments on the proposed requirements with a view to issuing a final rule.  The first hearing was just held on February 1, here in Washington, D.C., and the second will be held on February 9, in Dallas, Texas.

DHS has provided funding to the Railroad Research Foundation, a nonprofit organization devoted to sustaining a safe and productive railroad industry, to develop a Web-based tool to calculate rail-route-specific hazmat risks, and assist in route selection decisions.  This tool would be available to rail carriers in performing route analysis, and to DOT, TSA, and government emergency planners.   

In late 2005, FRA granted a request by the AAR and the American Chemistry Council to convene a “Section 333” conference to discuss ways to minimize security and safety risks flowing from the transportation by rail of TIH materials.  Section 333 of title 49 of the United States Code authorizes the FRA Administrator, as delegate of the Secretary of Transportation, to convene conferences at the request of one or more railroads to address coordination of operations and facilities of rail carriers in order to achieve a more efficient, economical, and viable rail system.  Persons attending a section 333 conference are immune from antitrust liability for any discussions at the conference, and can also receive immunity for any resulting agreements that receive FRA approval.  The conference has been carefully structured to minimize antitrust concerns involving the chemical manufacturers and shippers.  The conference provides the railroads and chemical manufacturers and shippers with the opportunity to meet and discuss approaches to reduce the amount of TIH materials moved by rail, and to enhance the safety and security of TIH materials that are moved.  FRA, PHMSA, and representatives from the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, TSA, and the Surface Transportation Board (STB) are participating in these discussions.  The initial efforts of the conference are focused on the rail transportation of chlorine and anhydrous ammonia, because those chemicals represent over 80 percent of all TIH rail shipments.  FRA has met with the rail carriers to discuss modeling and routing options.  Further meetings with the rail carriers, as well as separate meetings with shippers of chlorine and anhydrous ammonia by rail, have begun.  In some instances, the projects agreed to at the conference may need the approval of the STB in order to be implemented.

While we must remain ever vigilant to secure hazmat shipments on our Nation’s railroads, for the sake of railroad employees and the public whom we all serve, it bears emphasizing that all but a very few hazmat shipments arrive at their destinations safely.  Considering just chlorine, for example, between 1965 (the earliest data available) and 2005 (the last year for which complete data are available) there have been at least 2.2 million tank car shipments of chlorine–only 788 of which were involved in accidents (0.036 percent of all the shipments).  Of those accidents, there were 11 instances of a catastrophic loss (i.e., a loss of all, or nearly all) of the chlorine lading (0.0005 percent of all the shipments).  Of the 11 catastrophic losses, four resulted in fatalities (0.00018 percent of all the shipments).  For all hazardous materials, in the 13 years from 1994 through 2006, hazardous materials released in railroad accidents resulted in a total of 14 fatalities.  While one death is obviously too many, the record of transporting these commodities is very good, and we believe the initiatives underway will further improve upon that record.   

Passenger Railroad Security

As discussed earlier, in the area of passenger railroad security, FRA requires railroads that operate intercity or commuter passenger train service or that host the operation of such service to adopt and comply with written emergency preparedness plans approved by FRA.  See 49 CFR Part 239.  Emergencies include security-related situations.  Each plan must address employee training and qualification, and provide for both initial and recurrent training of on-board and control center employees to determine the extent of compliance with the plan.  Additionally, each railroad must establish and maintain a working relationship with emergency responders on its line by taking measures such as developing and making available a training program on the plan and inviting the emergency responders to participate in emergency simulations.  The regulation requires railroads providing passenger service to periodically conduct full-scale passenger train emergency simulations (with actual equipment and simulated victims) and conduct a debriefing and critique session after actual or simulated passenger train emergency situations.  FRA will continue monitoring passenger railroads for compliance with this regulation and attend each full-scale simulation and follow-up review session, as the Long Island Rail Road has scheduled for next month with the participation of the New York City Fire Department. 

In 2003, under the auspices of FRA’s Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), FRA initiated a review of existing passenger train safety needs and programs for the purpose of developing any necessary recommendations on actions to advance the safety of passenger rail service.  The RSAC is a forum for developing recommendations to FRA on rulemakings and other safety program issues, and it includes representatives from all of the rail industry’s major groups, State representatives, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and other stakeholders.  As part of this effort, the Passenger Safety Working Group was established, as well as four smaller task forces, notably the Emergency Preparedness Task Force.  The Emergency Preparedness Task Force is specifically devoted to consideration of passenger train emergency preparedness issues, and includes representatives from railroads, rail labor organizations, the NTSB, FTA, and TSA.  Its efforts helped lead to the issuance of proposed enhancements and additions to FRA’s regulations for passenger train emergency systems (emergency systems NPRM), to amend both FRA’s Passenger Equipment Safety Standards and Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness rules.  See 71 FR 50276; August 24, 2006. 

Emergency communication is one of the main focuses of the emergency systems NPRM.  Under the proposal, all existing passenger cars would be required to be equipped by 2012 with a public address system that provides a means for a crewmember to communicate to all train passengers in an emergency situation, and all new passenger cars would be required to be equipped with an intercom system that provides a means for passengers and crewmembers to communicate with each other in an emergency situation.  An intercom system could be vital in enabling a passenger to quickly alert a crewmember of a security threat, and the crewmember in turn could contact the appropriate authorities to obtain emergency assistance and use the train’s public address system to provide any necessary direction to passengers.  The proposed rulemaking would also promote passenger and employee safety in an emergency situation—whether resulting from an accident or an intentional act—by enhancing requirements for emergency window exits in passenger cars and mandating that all passenger cars, including existing cars, have rescue windows for emergency responder access.  FRA is in the process of preparing the final rule, which is expected to be issued some time in the near future.    

Moreover, a separate regulatory proposal is also in development within the Emergency Preparedness Task Force; this proposal focuses on passenger car emergency signage, emergency lighting, and low-location exit path marking.  The proposal under development is based on American Public Transportation Association (APTA) standards for passenger safety and is intended to augment current Federal requirements.

Complementing FRA and TSA efforts, Amtrak and commuter railroads have instituted their own security plans and conduct security training.  FRA assisted Amtrak in the development of its security plan.  Specifically, in coordination with Amtrak’s Inspector General, FRA contracted with the RAND Corporation to conduct a systematic review and assessment of Amtrak’s security posture, corporate strategic security planning, and programs focusing on the adequacy of preparedness for combating terrorist threats.  FRA’s security director is currently working with Amtrak to implement the recommendations of the RAND study.  APTA is also leading commuter railroads in the development of voluntary industry standards for passenger rail safety and security. 

While TSA inspectors have lead authority and responsibility in conducting security inspections and reviews, the interagency MOU does permit the use of FRA inspectors to support TSA’s security efforts.  FRA inspectors have conducted basic security reviews of Amtrak and commuter railroad security both after the 2004 train bombings in Madrid and after the 2005 transit bombings in London.  In both cases, FRA inspectors were deployed immediately after the bombings to assess the security posture of passenger railroad facilities based on a checklist of major security criteria.  In the aftermath of the London bombings, FRA worked closely on these security reviews with TSA’s rail security inspectors.  TSA focused primarily on urban rapid transit lines, while FRA inspectors concentrated on commuter and intercity rail passenger operations; in some situations, inspectors from the two agencies worked jointly.  FRA will continue to support TSA in responding to rail security threats.   

In partnership with FTA in the first few years after 9/11, FRA participated in security risk assessments on the ten largest commuter railroads and contributed the funding for security risk assessments on three of these railroads.  In addition, FRA participated in FTA’s “best practices tool kit” initiative, contributing our knowledge of commuter rail operations, infrastructure, and organization to ensure that the recommended security enhancement measures were sound and feasible in a railroad environment.  FRA staff continue to work closely with many of the railroads that receive FTA grant funding, to plan and assist in the development and implementation of security simulations and drills.  FRA also devotes staff with both railroad knowledge and facilitation skills to the FTA- and TSA-sponsored workshops across the country (called “Connecting Communities”) to bring together commuter railroads, emergency responders, and State and local government leaders so that they might better coordinate their security plans and emergency response efforts. 

Research and Development

FRA conducts and supports research, development, and demonstration projects related to rail safety and rail security through its Office of Research and Development, in cooperation with DHS.  Both theoretical and applied research on a wide range of issues has led to impressive results and to tangible technology and process improvements. 

A recent example of the application of FRA’s research efforts to both rail safety and security is the Passenger Rail Vehicle Emergency Evacuation Simulator, or “Rollover Rig.” This device, which began operation in 2006, can rotate a full-sized commuter rail car up to 180 degrees to simulate passenger train derailment scenarios.  The Rollover Rig is already enhancing the ability of researchers to test strategies for evacuating passenger rail cars and to evaluate the performance of emergency systems in the cars, such as emergency lighting, doors, and windows.  In addition, first responders nationwide now have a unique training tool to practice effective passenger rail rescue techniques safely when a rail car is on its side.  FRA developed the Rollover Rig at a cost of $450,000.  New Jersey Transit Rail Operations donated the commuter rail car used by the Rollover Rig, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority agreed to house, operate, and maintain the simulator at its emergency response training facility located in Landover, Maryland.

We also continue to look for ways to improve tank car survivability, to reduce the likelihood that a tank car may be breached either by an accident or by an intentional act.  PHMSA’s and FRA’s efforts to improve tank car survivability have a long and effective history.  Working with the industry, all tank cars carrying hazardous materials now have top and bottom shelf couplers, and, as appropriate, tank cars are equipped with head shields, thermal protection, and skid protection for protruding bottom outlets.  Tank cars carrying specific product groups, such as TIH and other particularly hazardous substances, are subject to additional requirements which became fully effective July 1, 2006, after a 10-year phase-in period. 

Prior to the August 2005 enactment of Section 9005 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), 49 U.S.C. § 20155, FRA had initiated tank car structural integrity research stemming from the circumstances of the 2002 derailment in Minot, North Dakota, involving the release of anhydrous ammonia from tank cars punctured during the derailment.  Current research involves a three-step process to assess the effects of various types of train accidents (e.g., a derailment or collision) on a tank car.  The first phase is development of a physics-based model to analyze the kinematics of rail cars in a derailment.  The second phase is development of a valid dynamic structural analysis model; and the third phase is an assessment of the damage created by a puncture and entails the application of fracture mechanics testing and analysis methods.  DOT’s Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), is doing the modeling work now, and FRA will dovetail this ongoing research with the requirements of Section 9005.  FRA, in conjunction with PHMSA, hopes to develop new hazardous material tank car safety standards in 2008, and we are currently consulting with railroads, shippers, and car manufacturers and have solicited public comments through two public meetings to assist us in this effort.  To further these efforts, FRA just signed a Memorandum of Cooperation with Dow Chemical Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and the Union Tank Car Company to participate in their Next Generation Rail Tank Car Project.

Further, in September 2006, FRA awarded $200,000 to test sample tank car panels with various coatings to determine their ability to prevent penetration from small arms fire, as well as their ability to self-seal and, thereby, mitigate the severity of any incident.  FRA developed the project in coordination with the AAR and DHS, which came up with the idea of applying to tank cars a protective coating like that used to enhance the armor protection of military vehicles in Iraq.

FRA has other research and development projects underway related to rail security, which we would be happy to discuss with Subcommittee staff. 

Conclusion

FRA will continue to support DHS in carrying out its security responsibilities, and work with the rail industry to secure the Nation’s freight and passenger railroad network.  Together, DOT, DHS, and the rail industry are helping to ensure that security initiatives and programs are directed at potential threats to the Nation’s railroad network and that rail employees and others responsible for its security are prepared to identify and address such threats.

Attachments

Appendix A

The Railroad Industry’s Safety Record

The railroad industry’s overall safety record is very positive, and most safety trends are moving in the right direction.  While not even a single death or injury is acceptable, progress is continually being made in the effort to improve railroad safety.  This improvement is demonstrated by an analysis of the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) database of railroad reports of accidents and incidents that have occurred over the nearly three decades from 1978 through 2005.  (The low point of rail safety in recent decades was 1978, and 2005 is the last complete year for which nearly final data are available.)  Between 1978 and 2005, the total number of rail-related accidents and incidents has fallen from 90,653 to 13,969, an all-time low representing a decline of 85 percent.  Between 1978 and 2005, total rail-related fatalities have declined from 1,646 to 888, the second-lowest number on record and a reduction of 46 percent.  From 1978 to 2005, total employee cases (fatal and nonfatal) have dropped from 65,193 to 5,643, the record low; this represents a decline of 91 percent.  In the same period, total employee deaths have fallen from 122 in 1978 to 25 in 2005, a decrease of 80 percent.

Contributing to this generally improving safety record has been a 71 percent decline in train accidents since 1978 (a total of 3,225 train accidents in 2005, compared to 10,991 in 1978), even though rail traffic has increased.  (Total train-miles were up by 5 percent from 1978 to 2005.)  In addition, the year 2005 saw only 37 train accidents out of the 3,225 reported in which a hazardous material was released, with a total of only 50 hazardous material cars releasing some amount of product, despite about 1.7 million movements of hazardous materials by rail.

In other words, over the last approximately three decades, the number and rate of train accidents, total deaths arising from rail operations, employee fatalities and injuries, and hazardous materials releases all have fallen dramatically.  In most categories, these improvements have been most rapid in the 1980s, and tapered off in the late 1990s.  Causes of the improvements have included a much more profitable economic climate for freight railroads following deregulation in 1980 under the Staggers Act (which led to substantially greater investment in plant and equipment), enhanced safety awareness and safety program implementation on the part of railroads and their employees, and FRA’s safety monitoring and standard setting (most of FRA’s safety rules were issued during this period).  In addition, rail remains an extremely safe mode of transportation for passengers.  Since 1978, more than 10.7 billion passengers have traveled by rail, based on reports filed with FRA each month.  The number of rail passengers has steadily increased over the years, and since 2000 has averaged more than 500 million per year.  Twelve rail passengers were killed in train collisions and derailments in 2005, including ten that died in the Glendale, California tragedy.  On a passenger-mile basis, with an average about 15.5 billion passenger-miles per year since the year 2000, rail travel is about as safe as scheduled airlines and intercity bus transportation and is far safer than private motor vehicle travel.  Rail passenger accidents–while always to be avoided–have a very high passenger survival rate.

As indicated previously, not all of the major safety indicators are positive.  Grade crossing and rail trespasser incidents continue to cause a large proportion of the deaths associated with railroading.  Grade crossing and rail trespassing deaths accounted for 93 percent of the 888 total rail-related deaths in 2005.  In recent years, rail trespasser deaths have replaced grade crossing fatalities as the largest category of rail-related deaths.  In 2005, 467 persons died while on railroad property without authorization, and 357 persons lost their lives in grade crossing accidents.  Further, significant train accidents continue to occur, and the train accident rate per million train-miles has not declined at an acceptable pace in recent years.  It actually rose slightly in 2003 and 2004 (to 4.05 and 4.38, respectively) compared to that in 2002 (3.76), although it dropped in 2005 (to 4.08).  As stated in the main testimony, the causes of train accidents are generally grouped into five categories:  human factors; track and structures; equipment; signal and train control; and miscellaneous.  The great majority of train accidents are caused by human factors and track.  In recent years, most of the serious events involving train collisions or derailments resulting in release of hazardous material, or harm to rail passengers, have resulted from human factor or track causes.  Accordingly, the National Rail Safety Action Plan makes human factors and track the major target areas for improving the train accident rate.

Appendix B

SUMMARY OF THE STEPS FRA HAS TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT ITS NATIONAL RAIL SAFETY ACTION PLAN

  • In response to various rail safety concerns, including some recent major train accidents, such as Graniteville, SC, and the lack of substantial improvement in the train accident rate in recent years, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta launched the National Rail Safety Action Plan in May 2005. FRA has made real and substantial progress in bringing its aggressive and ambitious National Rail Safety Action Plan to fruition.
  • To reduce the number of train accidents caused by human factors (the largest category of train accidents), FRA

  *        Issued a proposed Federal rule in October 2006 that would address top causes of human factor train accidents (such as failing to return a track switch to its proper position, which led to the Graniteville accident).  The final rule is expected to be issued later this year.

  *        Implemented an ongoing research program to identify human performance problems.  Railroads, their employees, and FRA are entering into agreements that permit the employees to report unsafe events that do not result in a reportable accident but could have done so, without the fear of discipline.

  *        Made available to railroads and their employees a fatigue model that can assist them in developing crew scheduling practices based on the best current science.

  *        Approved the first positive train control system capable of automatically controlling train speed and movements to prevent train collisions and other accidents.  The system will be installed on many BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) rail lines.

  *        Completed a pilot project, in partnership with BNSF, to develop a low-cost system that electronically monitors, detects, and reports a misaligned switch on mainline track located in non-signaled track territory.  BNSF plans expansion of this and other similar systems on other non-signaled lines of its company.

  • To help prevent track-caused train accidents (the second-leading category), FRA
    • Developed an automated track inspection system that uses high-resolution video to detect cracks in joint bars.  Testing showed that the high-resolution video system detected cracks that were missed by the traditional visual inspections.  The system, which can be deployed on a hi-rail vehicle to detect cracks in joint bars without having to stop the vehicle, was demonstrated to the railroads during summer and fall of 2006.
    • Issued a final rule requiring track owners to develop and implement a procedure for the detailed inspection of rail joints in continuous welded rail track.
    • Contracted for the construction of two automated track inspection vehicles, to be delivered in February and March, 2007, which will bring FRA’s fleet to five, allowing FRA to inspect nearly 100,000 track-miles each year, which triples the present capacity.  This additional capability will permit FRA to inspect more miles of major hazardous material (hazmat) and passenger routes, while also having the ability to follow up more quickly on routes where safety performance is substandard.
  • To improve hazmat safety and emergency response capability, FRA improved emergency responders’ timely access to hazmat information.  As discussed in FRA’s testimony today, FRA also accelerated its tank car structural research, hopes to issue new tank car performance standards in 2008, and has issued an NPRM on passenger train emergency systems.
  • To strengthen FRA’s rail safety inspection and enforcement program, FRA has made better use of data to direct FRA safety inspectors and other resources to where problems are likely to arise.  FRA’s new National Inspection Plan was fully implemented for all FRA safety disciplines in March 2006, and further training will be provided to FRA safety personnel on how to best use the data during the scheduled national technical conferences this year.
  • To foster further improvements in highway-rail grade crossing safety, FRA
    • Built partnerships with State and local agencies by issuing, in May 2005, and extensively distributing a safety advisory describing the roles of the Federal and State governments and of the railroads in crossing safety.  The advisory also reminds railroads of their responsibilities in relation to crossing accident reporting and investigation and offers assistance to local authorities in the investigation of crossing collisions where information or expertise within FRA control is required to complete the investigation.
    • Aided the State of Louisiana in developing a crossing safety action plan, approved by the State in April 2006.  This State has consistently ranked among the top five with the highest number of crossing collisions and fatalities. The State of Texas is currently working with FRA to develop a similar plan, and FRA is encouraging other States with a high numbers of grade crossing accidents to do the same. 
    • Launched an ongoing public safety inquiry into safety at private crossings.

We would be glad to provide the Subcommittee with additional information on the current status of FRA’s implementation of the National Rail Safety Action Plan.

The Federal Aviation Administration's Oversight of Foreign Aviation Repair Stations

STATEMENT OF

MARGARET GILLIGAN,
DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATON SAFETY

BEFORE THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

ON THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION’S OVERSIGHT OF FOREIGN AVIATION REPAIR STATIONS,

ON

JUNE 20, 2007

 

Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Lott, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) oversight of air carrier maintenance that is outsourced to foreign repair stations.  (Just to be clear, outsourcing is any maintenance performed for an air carrier by any individuals who are not employed by the air carrier whether in the US or abroad.)  I know the industry trend to outsource more of its maintenance in recent years has been a concern for some of you.  To some, outsourcing equates to cutting corners to save a few dollars.  To some, less costly maintenance means less safe maintenance.  To some, repair stations represent lesser quality maintenance.  All these assumptions imply that safety is being compromised as more maintenance is outsourced.  I am here today to reassure you that the quality of maintenance is not compromised simply because it is not being done by an air carrier.  No less an authority than the former Department of Transportation Inspector General (IG), Ken Meade, testified before Congress that use of these stations is not a question of quality, but rather an issue of oversight.  We agree, which is why the FAA is continually improving and refining our oversight of maintenance, no matter where it is performed or by whom.

Let me start by stating the obvious.  The system is safe.  As this subcommittee well knows, we have achieved the highest safety standards in the history of aviation.  Even so, our goal is – as always – to continue to improve safety.  I would like to share with you a chart that goes to the heart of this hearing.  (See the attachment at the end of the statement.)  The lines represent the percent of maintenance that is being outsourced and the accident rate, per hundred thousand operations.  I think this picture is worth a thousand words.  Although the percentage of outsourcing has never been higher, the accident rate has never been lower.  These statistics amply demonstrate that aviation safety is not dependent on airlines performing their own maintenance. 

Before I explain the specifics of FAA’s oversight of outsourced maintenance, let me take a moment to describe the office of aviation safety.  Last year, after years of hard work, the Office of Aviation Safety (AVS) achieved ISO 9001 certification.  This certification ensures that, worldwide, FAA safety offices provide standardized service and products, and that we adhere to the same safety standards as those businesses we regulate.  We are the only federal organization of our size, scope and complexity to have achieved ISO certification under a single quality management system.  It was through my employees’ dedication and hard work that we achieved ISO certification.  Not one milestone was missed on our road to certification.  So, our oversight of maintenance is part of an independently validated approach to holding ourselves to some pretty high standards.

Previously, our oversight was based largely on inspector knowledge and information that was available as the result of individual inspections.  This approach was the best we could do at the time, but it was far from comprehensive.  The effectiveness of our oversight could vary from facility to facility.  What we are doing now is managing risk and requiring system safety.  Just as we have worked the concept of system safety with the airlines, we are currently introducing the concept to repair stations.

Let me explain what I mean by system safety.  System safety is extremely comprehensive.  It sounds like a simple list of requirements, but in reality, it is a sophisticated approach to ensuring that everything is in place to obtain the information that can identify vulnerability in time to address it before safety is compromised.  System safety requires the following attributes.  It must be clear who is responsible for different aspects of the operation.  The responsible person must have the authority to take necessary action.  There must be procedures in place to execute required actions.  There must be controls in place to insure that a consistent product or service is being provided.  There must be oversight/auditing procedures in place to independently evaluate the effectiveness and consistency of the operation.  And lastly, there must be interface procedures in place to ensure that different parts of the organization are effectively talking to each other.  Consistency is the goal.  Inconsistency signals the need for a closer look and can provide us the early warning we need to get ahead of problems that could affect safety.

In addition, these attributes must be supported by a written Safety Policy expressing senior management’s commitment to continually improve safety and includes safety risk management processes, safety assurances, and safety promotion.  Safety risk management processes are used to assess system design and verify that safety risk management is integrated into all processes.  Safety assurances continually identify new hazards and ensure risk controls achieve their intended objective.  Safety promotion ensures an environment where action is taken to create a positive safety culture where people acknowledge their accountability and act on their own individual responsibility for safety.

This is what we will require of all organizations for which we have safety oversight responsibility, whether it be an airline, a manufacturer or a repair station.  With these elements in place, our inspectors can perform hazard analyses and identify risk so that threats can be pre-empted.  Instead of relying solely on information from individual inspections alone, we now perform a sophisticated analysis of anomalies identified and entered into the system.  The analysis can provide us trend information that effectively targets our oversight.  This is a much more comprehensive approach than what we were able to do previously.  It allows us to get in front of potential problems in order to prevent them.  This is not only a better use of FAA resources, it enhances safety.

The past few years have been about continuing forward and making adjustments to an already robust system.  We have been working closely with the Department of Transportation Inspector General’s (IG) office since their issuance in 2003 of the report “Review of Air Carriers’ Use of Aircraft Repair Stations.”  The report identified specific areas where the IG felt improvements could be made.  In response to the report, we made a number of changes to our oversight of repair stations.  In 2004, we revised the regulations that apply to repair stations.  The rule improved quality control requirements, equipment requirements, and provided more detailed requirements on the use by repair stations of external maintenance providers.  In 2005, we issued guidance to enhance oversight of repair stations based on system safety requirements and risk assessment.  In 2006, we developed and implemented software to further enhance oversight, risk assessment, and risk management processes used in our oversight.  We’ve improved our Safety Performance Analysis System to provide sharing of information between the inspectors assigned to the repair station, and those assigned to the air carrier.  We’ve also improved the training requirements for certain repair station personnel.

We are currently testing a different way to oversee the work performed by complex repair stations.  We call this approach the Certificate Management Unit (CMU) concept.  CMU is a model of oversight for complex repair stations that parallels the way we conduct oversight of air carriers.  CMU will provide for dedicated inspectors providing oversight at the assigned repair station.  This addresses the criticism that FAA has failed to adapt its oversight of repair stations to reflect their increasing use by air carriers.  Having assigned inspectors at these repair stations will further reduce the differences between the way we oversee major repair stations versus major airlines.  We will continue to evaluate, modify and expand this concept as appropriate.

I mentioned at the outset that AVS is ISO certified.  Part of what this means is that, as an organization, we must continually evaluate what we are doing to identify where we can improve.  So I fully expect ongoing modifications to our oversight procedures and analysis as we learn more and develop new and better tools.

I would now like to turn my focus to foreign repair stations because I know they have been of particular interest to this subcommittee.  As is the case with domestic repair stations, there is an incorrect perception that a carrier’s use of a foreign repair station is somehow unsafe or done solely to reduce maintenance costs.  I know there have been a number of efforts to restrict a U.S. carrier’s ability to use foreign repair stations, but I do not believe these efforts would enhance safety.  It is important to understand that FAA only certifies a foreign repair station if a U.S. carrier wants to use it.  Unlike a domestic applicant, a foreign applicant must provide evidence that a U.S. operator or manufacturer needs its services.  The repair station must meet the same standards that we apply to repair stations in the United States or we will not certify it.  Safety is addressed because we require that all aircraft that are registered in the United States be maintained to U.S. standards, regardless of where they operate.  Due to the global nature of aviation, we must have repair stations that meet U.S. standards throughout the world.  It is an essential element of the U.S. being a leading provider of international transportation services.  Finally, keep in mind that, as is the case when a carrier uses a domestic repair station, the carrier has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the maintenance is being performed appropriately.  All of this adds up to a great deal of supervision.  The repair station has internal controls, foreign government oversight, airline oversight, and FAA oversight.

In three countries (France, Ireland and Germany) where we have Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements (BASA), we have outlined maintenance implementation procedures (MIP) to ensure that foreign inspectors are placing appropriate emphasis on the Federal Aviation Regulations when conducting review of work done on U.S. aircraft.  We have a long history and experience with these aviation authorities.  In these countries, we rely on the oversight of the aviation authority in addition to our periodic inspections.  We are also working to ensure that these foreign aviation authorities inform us and seek FAA approval of changes to repair station operations if they directly impact FAA requirements. 

In response to the IG, we have also made some changes to our oversight of foreign repair stations.  For example, we eliminated the 10% sampling requirement on FAA’s inspection of repair stations in countries where there is a BASA/MIP in place.  In FY 2006, FAA conducted sampling inspections in 21% of the repair stations located in these countries.  We have also developed and implemented policy and procedures in the BASA/MIP countries to capture the results from the inspections conducted by foreign authorities.  

It is also important to remember that, by its nature, aviation is truly an international enterprise.  An aircraft, especially in commercial aviation, contains parts manufactured all around the world.  The original equipment manufactures (OEMs) have a wealth of expertise in repairing their products.  In addition, their parts may have warranties.  It would be extremely unwise to restrict a U.S. carrier’s ability to use OEM maintenance, even if the OEM is abroad. 

There are a number of other reasons for air carriers to choose to outsource some maintenance and repair activities.  The expertise of OEMs is so considerable and their work is so consistent that maintenance is often outsourced to them, regardless of whether the maintenance being performed is on a part they manufactured.  In other cases, overseas repair and maintenance facilities may provide a great deal of expertise for lower costs.  Nevertheless, just as aviation safety is in no way compromised by allowing U.S. carriers to fly aircraft made in Europe, in Brazil, or in Canada, so too is safety in no way compromised by allowing other countries to conduct repair and maintenance on our aircraft.

I would like to conclude this morning by saying that our work with the IG’s office in the past few years has been productive.  We have made a number of adjustments that I think have improved the effectiveness of our oversight.  That can only improve safety.  I think we generally agree that we are moving in the right direction.  Certainly, the chart I talked about reflects that airline use of repair stations has not compromised safety.

I understand and appreciate this subcommittee’s concern about the increased use of foreign repair stations.  Obviously, we share a common goal to find ways to improve safety at a historically safe period in U.S. aviation.  I can assure you that my office is totally committed to making whatever adjustments the situation demands when it comes to safety oversight.  Hearings like the one today continue a necessary dialogue.  I do not claim to have all the answers.  I think the changes we have made in recent years are good ones.  But we can’t sit still.  There will always be ways to improve and we will continue to look for them.

This concludes my statement.  I will be happy to answer your questions at this time.

Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: Federal Aviation Administration Authorization

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE ELAINE L. CHAO
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 JUNE 8, 2017

BUILDING A 21st CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA:
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION

 

Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, Members of the Committee:

Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today on the future direction of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  The upcoming FAA Reauthorization provides an opportunity to build on the FAA’s safety record and encourage innovation and creativity.  Every day, the dedicated men and women of the FAA safely and efficiently separate and guide thousands of aircraft carrying millions of passengers and tons of cargo to destinations around the country.  Despite the FAA’s outstanding safety record, the agency is increasingly challenged to address the quickly evolving needs of the nation’s airspace users. 

Over the years, representatives from the Department of Transportation and the FAA have come before you to discuss new and, all too often, ongoing challenges.  As this Committee previously recognized, some of the major ongoing challenges facing the FAA involve being able to respond to the demands of the users of the national airspace, the flexibility to execute its priorities, and funding stability.  The FAA has responded to these challenges by prioritizing its work, knowing that safety cannot be compromised.  However, the time has come to address these challenges head on. The need for a comprehensive FAA Reauthorization, including a new governance structure for air traffic control operations (ATC) is critical to address these challenges.  The Administration has introduced its principles for crafting legislation to accomplish this reorganization.

These principles include the creation of a private, nonprofit cooperative for air traffic control, leaving the FAA to focus on its oversight and safety duties.  Separating the regulated entity from the regulator is hardly a novel concept; that is but one element of the Administration’s proposal to transform American's aviation system. 

Our skies are becoming increasingly congested; flight delays and time wasted on the tarmac waiting for clearance are the new normal.   Some domestic flights between the same two cities today actually take longer than they did decades ago because of congestion and indirect routing.  What this means is that we do not have a system that can handle increasing capacity and still maintain safety.

Our air traffic organization must be more nimble.  A bulky federal government procurement apparatus does not move fast enough to keep pace with new technologies and new demands.  A private non-profit entity with the flexibility and authority to make investment decisions can move much more quickly to replace old equipment and paper flight strips with the latest technology.

A private entity, with an impartial board of directors, is directly responsive to the users of the National Airspace System – delivering the air traffic services that users demand, and charging for the cost of those services.  ATC improvements could be made more effectively by an organization supported by its own revenue.  Fees charged to users of these services will support the new entity, and any surplus revenue will be reinvested to keep the system current.  This is an improvement from the today’s mix of aviation taxes that are not tied to the use of air traffic control services.

Today, the FAA must deal with NextGen implementation, the integration of new entrants such as Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), and aviation safety reforms, including aircraft certification and cyber security.

Among other important safeguards, legislation based on the Administration’s principles would ensure that the government would work with key stakeholders to achieve a responsible and seamless transition.  This transition will be vital to provide operational continuity and protections for existing employees and system users – all without impact to the FAA’s safety mission.

While the U.S. remains the gold standard in aviation, the FAA understands that continued innovation and modernization are important to safety and global leadership.   Shifting air traffic control out of the government, improving accountability to aviation users and adaptability in its operations are key steps to achieving these goals.  While NextGen modernization has been implemented at certain airports and facilities under current constraints, FAA’s efforts are often hampered by piecemeal government appropriations and a slow Federal procurement process.  A private, nonprofit ATC co-op would be able to leverage private sector financial tools with agility and ingenuity, and accelerate advances in aviation technology.   Combined with a steady, predictable revenue stream from user fees and borrowing from capital markets when necessary, the new ATC would be able to make the best modernization investment decisions to keep ATC technology up-to-date and competitive with that of our global peers.

Even under its current constraints, the FAA has been engaged with and responsive to industry. The NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC), comprised of aviation stakeholders, is the most prominent avenue for industry collaboration.  It advises the FAA on policy-level issues facing the aviation community in implementing NextGen and plays a critical role in defining priorities so that the FAA can focus its investments and deliver the NextGen capabilities that matter most to the customers.

The NAC previously identified the development of Data Communications (Data Comm) as a priority.  Voice communications can be time consuming and labor intensive.  For example, when planes are awaiting takeoff, controllers must use a two-way radio to issue new routes to pilots to help them avoid bad weather.  This process can take 30 minutes or more, depending on how many aircraft are in line for departure.  It also introduces the potential for miscommunication known as “readback/hearback” error.   Data Comm dramatically reduces communications time, which results in faster taxi outs and reduced delays.  Data Comm also enhances safety by virtually eliminating the chance of the flight crew misunderstanding the message from air traffic control.  Data Comm is now operational at 56 air traffic control towers nationwide and is installed on over 3,800 aircraft operating in the nation’s airspace.  However, expanded Data Comm services at all FAA en route air traffic control centers will not begin until 2019.  While Data Comm delivered capabilities to air traffic control towers ahead of schedule and on budget, deployment to en route centers could happen faster with a non-governmental entity.  Government is simply not the most effective generator for change, particularly involving technology. 

New Entrants

The Department of Transportation and the FAA are uniquely positioned, but not adequately equipped, to assimilate the exciting new technologies that are revolutionizing our transportation infrastructure, such as unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)—more commonly referred to as drones.  Drones are the new frontier of aviation and the Administration is committed to making America the world leader in UAS technologies and applications.  It is a priority of this Administration to fully and expeditiously integrate drones into the NAS so that they may operate harmoniously, side-by-side with manned aircraft.  Safely integrating new entrants, such as drones, into the NAS will require a flexible governance framework that can adapt to new capabilities, technologies and users and effectively coordinate with all stakeholders.  The Administration recently sent draft legislation on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to the Congressional Armed Services Committees for inclusion in the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act.  This legislation is an important step in unlocking the promise of a new era in aviation and industry development.  Under current law, the government is unable to fully evaluate or utilize essential detection, tracking, and mitigation technologies to counter rapidly advancing safety and security risks that may be posed by errant or hostile UAS operations.  The Administration’s proposed legislation provides a tailored grant of authority within a framework that provides effective oversight and protects privacy, civil liberties, and airspace safety.  I ask for the committee’s support for this important piece of legislation as DOT and interagency partners work with Congress to its hopeful enactment into law this year. 

Drones present unique security challenges.  As Congress recognized in the FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016 (FAA Extension) these challenges require a whole-of-government response.  The FAA is working with several departments and agencies–including the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and others–to identify and evaluate technologies that detect, and track unmanned aircraft movement through the NAS, and mitigate threats posed by UAS in a safe manner.           

As directed in Section 2206 of the 2016 FAA Extension, the FAA has established a pilot program and is working with interagency partners to evaluate some of these technologies, which have been tested in airport environments at New York's JFK Airport, Atlantic City International Airport, and Denver International Airport.  The FAA recently completed another test session at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport.  Additionally, the FAA is working with interagency partners to develop policies and procedures for restricting UAS operations over fixed site facilities, as directed by Section 2209 of the 2016 FAA Extension.

Moving forward, the FAA intends to build on the progress that it has made.  One example of an initiative currently underway is the FAA’s development of an automated process for drone operators to notify ATC of flights within five miles of an airport or to get authorization to fly in certain classes of airspace.  Developed in partnership with industry, this initiative, known as the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC), will provide operators with a streamlined solution to enable notification and authorization, with the goal of near real-time processing of airspace notifications and automatic approval of routine requests. Once fully operational, LAANC will be the first step toward implementing UAS traffic management (UTM), as directed by the 2016 FAA Extension. 

The FAA continues to involve all stakeholders in framing challenges, prioritizing activities, and developing consensus solutions.  Last summer, the FAA formed the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC).  Its members include representatives from industry, government, labor, and academia.  The DAC will allow the FAA to look at drone use from every angle, while considering the different viewpoints and needs of the diverse UAS community.  Currently, the DAC is assisting the FAA in three key areas: identifying the roles and responsibilities of drone operators, manufacturers, and government officials concerning drone use in populated areas, determining what the highest-priority drone operations are and how the FAA can enable access to the airspace needed to conduct these operations, and how to fund the full complement of services required to safely integrate drones into the NAS in the long-term. 

The FAA has ambitious plans for UAS integration.  Contrary to other countries who merely wish to segregate UAS operations, the FAA’s long-term plan is to fully integrate UAS into the NAS.  This endeavor will be a complex process requiring creative new pilot projects, the use of new technology to identify users, the development of a guidance framework aimed at supporting technological advancement, and the involvement of multiple partners nationwide.  While the FAA has made great strides to integrate UAS into the NAS, full integration would substantially benefit from comprehensive FAA Reauthorization, including a stable, efficient, and flexible air traffic control corporation.

Risk-Based Decision Making

The aviation industry is undergoing a transformation, with hundreds of thousands of new entrants, and cutting-edge advancements in technology.  Comprehensive FAA Reauthorization, including a new, private ATC entity, is critical to support the FAA in its efforts to continue to set global standards in areas such as aircraft certification transformation, and emerging cyber security threats. 

Government must be a catalyst for innovation, not an impediment.  To that end, the FAA’s safety organization has capitalized on its current flexibilities to  implement a risk-based decision making approach that will enable it to keep pace with industry while continuing to increase the level of safety.  In the area of aircraft certification, the FAA is moving beyond the reforms that Congress directed in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to transform its Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) to meet the demands of today’s dynamic aviation environment.  Refreshing the certification strategy means FAA will take a systems approach, relying on industry’s processes and competencies based on risk management.  This minimizes our involvement along the certification path to those areas of higher risk.  

To support this shift to a risk-based management model, the FAA is making investments in information technology that will allow it to adjust its level of involvement and assign its resources accordingly.  Perhaps most importantly, the FAA is investing in its people.  By moving away from an organizational structure based on geographic locations to an organization built around the functions AIR performs, AIR will better match industry’s demands and global needs. Emphasis will be placed on up front planning on new technologies with industry, development of reusable compliance techniques adaptable to industry, and a shared risk-based oversight program with industry.

We know industry wants to maximize the Organizational Delegation Authorization, or ODA—and the FAA is doing just that.  For example, AIR recently created a new Organizational Performance Division that will oversee its roadmap to transformation, tracking outcomes expected by both the FAA and industry.   The new division will establish agreed upon metrics and effectiveness measures for both the FAA and industry.  In this new organizational framework, the FAA and industry will hold each other accountable to meeting these metrics.

With the support of Congress, the FAA has also completed the first major revision of its aircraft certification regulations.  In December of last year, the FAA issued new performance-based rules for small aircraft certification in 14 CFR part 23.  Instead of prescribing certain technologies and designs, the new rules define performance objectives and give industry the flexibility to determine the best and safest way to meet them.  A major endeavor in conjunction with this revision is streamlining the cost and timelines associated with acquiring and installing safety enhancing equipment in the general aviation cockpit.  We want to “right size” the level of rigor applied in certifying this new technology based on the overall risk it presents, balanced by the potential safety enhancement it introduces.  The FAA has also streamlined the process of installing other non-required safety enhancing equipment in the general aviation cockpit. 

Other Priorities

The FAA recognizes that cyber security is one of our greatest challenges, because threats change continuously.  We know that the agency must be vigilant, particularly as new technologies and procedures are added into the NAS.  In 2015, the FAA tasked its Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC), comprised of industry stakeholders, to form a working group to provide recommendations on cyber security aimed at the full spectrum of civil aviation products—from transport aircraft to general aviation aircraft to engines.  The FAA intends to use these recommendations to promote the establishment of an international standard to protect civil aircraft from cyber vulnerabilities. 

Conclusion

To accommodate growing air traffic and address the quickly evolving needs of the Nation’s airspace users, Congress should be ambitious and embrace a bold, comprehensive vision for FAA Reauthorization.  To maintain its status as the global leader in aviation, the Administration’s proposal to separate ATC into a non-profit entity, with the ability to charge for air traffic services and governed by an impartial Board of Directors representing the broad stakeholders that use the national airspace, will accomplish this.  The critical aviation safety activities such as the certification of manufactures and pilots, safety oversight of aviation operators and the air traffic control private entity, and the regulation of new entrants such as UAS, would be maintained in the FAA.  The Administration is committed to working with Congress to foster American innovation in aviation and solidify America’s role as the global leader in aviation.

This concludes my statement.  I look forward to working with you and the members of the Committee as we move forward on FAA Reauthorization.

FAA Reauthorization and Modernization

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE ELAINE L. CHAO
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

 COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE

 JUNE 7, 2017

FAA REAUTHORIZATION AND MODERNIZATION

 

Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, Members of the Committee:

Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today on the future direction of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  The upcoming FAA Reauthorization provides an opportunity to build on the FAA’s safety record and encourage innovation and creativity.  Every day, the dedicated men and women of the FAA safely and efficiently separate and guide thousands of aircraft carrying millions of passengers and tons of cargo to destinations around the country.  Despite the FAA’s outstanding safety record, the agency is increasingly challenged to address the quickly evolving needs of the nation’s airspace users. 

Over the years, representatives from the Department of Transportation and the FAA have come before you to discuss new and, all too often, ongoing challenges.  As this Committee previously recognized, some of the major ongoing challenges facing the FAA involve being able to respond to the demands of the users of the national airspace, the flexibility to execute its priorities, and funding stability.  The FAA has responded to these challenges by prioritizing its work, knowing that safety cannot be compromised.  However, the time has come to address these challenges head on. The need for a comprehensive FAA Reauthorization, including a new governance structure for air traffic control operations (ATC) is critical to address these challenges.  The Administration has introduced its principles for crafting legislation to accomplish this reorganization.

These principles include the creation of a private, nonprofit cooperative for air traffic control, leaving the FAA to focus on its oversight and safety duties.  Separating the regulated entity from the regulator is hardly a novel concept; that is but one element of the Administration’s proposal to transform American's aviation system. 

Our skies are becoming increasingly congested; flight delays and time wasted on the tarmac waiting for clearance are the new normal.   Some domestic flights between the same two cities today actually take longer than they did decades ago because of congestion and indirect routing.  What this means is that we do not have a system that can handle increasing capacity and still maintain safety.

Our air traffic organization must be more nimble.  A bulky federal government procurement apparatus does not move fast enough to keep pace with new technologies and new demands.  A private non-profit entity with the flexibility and authority to make investment decisions can move much more quickly to replace old equipment and paper flight strips with the latest technology.

A private entity, with an impartial board of directors, is directly responsive to the users of the National Airspace System – delivering the air traffic services that users demand, and charging for the cost of those services.  ATC improvements could be made more effectively by an organization supported by its own revenue.  Fees charged to users of these services will support the new entity, and any surplus revenue will be reinvested to keep the system current.  This is an improvement from the today’s mix of aviation taxes that are not tied to the use of air traffic control services.

Today, the FAA must deal with NextGen implementation, the integration of new entrants such as Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), and aviation safety reforms, including aircraft certification and cyber security.

Among other important safeguards, legislation based on the Administration’s principles would ensure that the government would work with key stakeholders to achieve a responsible and seamless transition.  This transition will be vital to provide operational continuity and protections for existing employees and system users – all without impact to the FAA’s safety mission.

While the U.S. remains the gold standard in aviation, the FAA understands that continued innovation and modernization are important to safety and global leadership.   Shifting air traffic control out of the government, improving accountability to aviation users and adaptability in its operations are key steps to achieving these goals.  While NextGen modernization has been implemented at certain airports and facilities under current constraints, FAA’s efforts are often hampered by piecemeal government appropriations and a slow Federal procurement process.  A private, nonprofit ATC co-op would be able to leverage private sector financial tools with agility and ingenuity, and accelerate advances in aviation technology.   Combined with a steady, predictable revenue stream from user fees and borrowing from capital markets when necessary, the new ATC would be able to make the best modernization investment decisions to keep ATC technology up-to-date and competitive with that of our global peers.

Even under its current constraints, the FAA has been engaged with and responsive to industry. The NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC), comprised of aviation stakeholders, is the most prominent avenue for industry collaboration.  It advises the FAA on policy-level issues facing the aviation community in implementing NextGen and plays a critical role in defining priorities so that the FAA can focus its investments and deliver the NextGen capabilities that matter most to the customers.

The NAC previously identified the development of Data Communications (Data Comm) as a priority.  Voice communications can be time consuming and labor intensive.  For example, when planes are awaiting takeoff, controllers must use a two-way radio to issue new routes to pilots to help them avoid bad weather.  This process can take 30 minutes or more, depending on how many aircraft are in line for departure.  It also introduces the potential for miscommunication known as “readback/hearback” error.   Data Comm dramatically reduces communications time, which results in faster taxi outs and reduced delays.  Data Comm also enhances safety by virtually eliminating the chance of the flight crew misunderstanding the message from air traffic control.  Data Comm is now operational at 56 air traffic control towers nationwide and is installed on over 3,800 aircraft operating in the nation’s airspace.  However, expanded Data Comm services at all FAA en route air traffic control centers will not begin until 2019.  While Data Comm delivered capabilities to air traffic control towers ahead of schedule and on budget, deployment to en route centers could happen faster with a non-governmental entity.  Government is simply not the most effective generator for change, particularly involving technology. 

New Entrants

The Department of Transportation and the FAA are uniquely positioned, but not adequately equipped, to assimilate the exciting new technologies that are revolutionizing our transportation infrastructure, such as unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)—more commonly referred to as drones.  Drones are the new frontier of aviation and the Administration is committed to making America the world leader in UAS technologies and applications.  It is a priority of this Administration to fully and expeditiously integrate drones into the NAS so that they may operate harmoniously, side-by-side with manned aircraft.  Safely integrating new entrants, such as drones, into the NAS will require a flexible governance framework that can adapt to new capabilities, technologies and users and effectively coordinate with all stakeholders.  The Administration recently sent draft legislation on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to the Congressional Armed Services Committees for inclusion in the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act.  This legislation is an important step in unlocking the promise of a new era in aviation and industry development.  Under current law, the government is unable to fully evaluate or utilize essential detection, tracking, and mitigation technologies to counter rapidly advancing safety and security risks that may be posed by errant or hostile UAS operations.  The Administration’s proposed legislation provides a tailored grant of authority within a framework that provides effective oversight and protects privacy, civil liberties, and airspace safety.  I ask for the committee’s support for this important piece of legislation as DOT and interagency partners work with Congress to its hopeful enactment into law this year. 

Drones present unique security challenges.  As Congress recognized in the FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016 (FAA Extension) these challenges require a whole-of-government response.  The FAA is working with several departments and agencies–including the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and others–to identify and evaluate technologies that detect, and track unmanned aircraft movement through the NAS, and mitigate threats posed by UAS in a safe manner.           

As directed in Section 2206 of the 2016 FAA Extension, the FAA has established a pilot program and is working with interagency partners to evaluate some of these technologies, which have been tested in airport environments at New York's JFK Airport, Atlantic City International Airport, and Denver International Airport.  The FAA recently completed another test session at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport.  Additionally, the FAA is working with interagency partners to develop policies and procedures for restricting UAS operations over fixed site facilities, as directed by Section 2209 of the 2016 FAA Extension.

Moving forward, the FAA intends to build on the progress that it has made.  One example of an initiative currently underway is the FAA’s development of an automated process for drone operators to notify ATC of flights within five miles of an airport or to get authorization to fly in certain classes of airspace.  Developed in partnership with industry, this initiative, known as the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC), will provide operators with a streamlined solution to enable notification and authorization, with the goal of near real-time processing of airspace notifications and automatic approval of routine requests. Once fully operational, LAANC will be the first step toward implementing UAS traffic management (UTM), as directed by the 2016 FAA Extension. 

The FAA continues to involve all stakeholders in framing challenges, prioritizing activities, and developing consensus solutions.  Last summer, the FAA formed the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC).  Its members include representatives from industry, government, labor, and academia.  The DAC will allow the FAA to look at drone use from every angle, while considering the different viewpoints and needs of the diverse UAS community.  Currently, the DAC is assisting the FAA in three key areas: identifying the roles and responsibilities of drone operators, manufacturers, and government officials concerning drone use in populated areas, determining what the highest-priority drone operations are and how the FAA can enable access to the airspace needed to conduct these operations, and how to fund the full complement of services required to safely integrate drones into the NAS in the long-term. 

The FAA has ambitious plans for UAS integration.  Contrary to other countries who merely wish to segregate UAS operations, the FAA’s long-term plan is to fully integrate UAS into the NAS.  This endeavor will be a complex process requiring creative new pilot projects, the use of new technology to identify users, the development of a guidance framework aimed at supporting technological advancement, and the involvement of multiple partners nationwide.  While the FAA has made great strides to integrate UAS into the NAS, full integration would substantially benefit from comprehensive FAA Reauthorization, including a stable, efficient, and flexible air traffic control corporation.

Risk-Based Decision Making

            The aviation industry is undergoing a transformation, with hundreds of thousands of new entrants, and cutting-edge advancements in technology.  Comprehensive FAA Reauthorization, including a new, private ATC entity, is critical to support the FAA in its efforts to continue to set global standards in areas such as aircraft certification transformation, and emerging cyber security threats. 

Government must be a catalyst for innovation, not an impediment.  To that end, the FAA’s safety organization has capitalized on its current flexibilities to  implement a risk-based decision making approach that will enable it to keep pace with industry while continuing to increase the level of safety.  In the area of aircraft certification, the FAA is moving beyond the reforms that Congress directed in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to transform its Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) to meet the demands of today’s dynamic aviation environment.  Refreshing the certification strategy means FAA will take a systems approach, relying on industry’s processes and competencies based on risk management.  This minimizes our involvement along the certification path to those areas of higher risk.  

To support this shift to a risk-based management model, the FAA is making investments in information technology that will allow it to adjust its level of involvement and assign its resources accordingly.  Perhaps most importantly, the FAA is investing in its people.  By moving away from an organizational structure based on geographic locations to an organization built around the functions AIR performs, AIR will better match industry’s demands and global needs. Emphasis will be placed on up front planning on new technologies with industry, development of reusable compliance techniques adaptable to industry, and a shared risk-based oversight program with industry.

We know industry wants to maximize the Organizational Delegation Authorization, or ODA—and the FAA is doing just that.  For example, AIR recently created a new Organizational Performance Division that will oversee its roadmap to transformation, tracking outcomes expected by both the FAA and industry.   The new division will establish agreed upon metrics and effectiveness measures for both the FAA and industry.  In this new organizational framework, the FAA and industry will hold each other accountable to meeting these metrics.

With the support of Congress, the FAA has also completed the first major revision of its aircraft certification regulations.  In December of last year, the FAA issued new performance-based rules for small aircraft certification in 14 CFR part 23.  Instead of prescribing certain technologies and designs, the new rules define performance objectives and give industry the flexibility to determine the best and safest way to meet them.  A major endeavor in conjunction with this revision is streamlining the cost and timelines associated with acquiring and installing safety enhancing equipment in the general aviation cockpit.  We want to “right size” the level of rigor applied in certifying this new technology based on the overall risk it presents, balanced by the potential safety enhancement it introduces.  The FAA has also streamlined the process of installing other non-required safety enhancing equipment in the general aviation cockpit. 

Other Priorities

            The FAA recognizes that cyber security is one of our greatest challenges, because threats change continuously.  We know that the agency must be vigilant, particularly as new technologies and procedures are added into the NAS.  In 2015, the FAA tasked its Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC), comprised of industry stakeholders, to form a working group to provide recommendations on cyber security aimed at the full spectrum of civil aviation products—from transport aircraft to general aviation aircraft to engines.  The FAA intends to use these recommendations to promote the establishment of an international standard to protect civil aircraft from cyber vulnerabilities. 

Conclusion

To accommodate growing air traffic and address the quickly evolving needs of the Nation’s airspace users, Congress should be ambitious and embrace a bold, comprehensive vision for FAA Reauthorization.  To maintain its status as the global leader in aviation, the Administration’s proposal to separate ATC into a non-profit entity, with the ability to charge for air traffic services and governed by an impartial Board of Directors representing the broad stakeholders that use the national airspace, will accomplish this.  The critical aviation safety activities such as the certification of manufactures and pilots, safety oversight of aviation operators and the air traffic control private entity, and the regulation of new entrants such as UAS, would be maintained in the FAA.  The Administration is committed to working with Congress to foster American innovation in aviation and solidify America’s role as the global leader in aviation.

This concludes my statement.  I look forward to working with you and the members of the Committee as we move forward on FAA Reauthorization.

The Most Wanted List of the National Transportation Safety Board

STATEMENT OF

PEGGY GILLIGAN,
DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,

OFFICE OF AVIATION SAFETY,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION,

ON

THE MOST WANTED LIST OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD,

ON JUNE 6, 2007.

 

Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the state of aviation safety with a focus on the recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) Most Wanted List.  The relationship and interaction between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the NTSB is an important component in aviation safety.  Our roles are different, but complimentary.  Through accident investigation, the NTSB makes findings of probable cause that lead to the issuance of safety recommendations.  The FAA receives the vast majority of the NTSB’s safety recommendations.  In turn, the FAA takes action on the vast majority of the NTSB’s recommendations, even when the recommendation asks that we develop new technology to address the recommendations.  We always value the intent of the recommendations, even if we are unable to do exactly what the Board recommends.  Their recommendations represent the ideal, our consideration of those recommendations must, by law, factor in certain realities.

At the same time FAA has a proactive safety agenda that is developed independently from the NTSB.  Naturally, there are overlapping issues, and in many cases, the FAA is already pursuing safety actions well before the NTSB recommendation is received.  We do not wait to act until the NTSB has issued a recommendation.  Just one example of this would be the inspections that were mandated on the A300 composite rudders, following the American Airlines Flight 587 accident.  As the NTSB continued to uncover key information in the investigation, we were gathering fleet information of our own.  In fact, many of our safety priorities over the years have not been in response to the NTSB at all.  For example, Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS); the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) Safety Enhancements that indicated the value of Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems (TAWS); and the initiatives that resulted from Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane Systems (EAPAS) were all developed independent of any NTSB recommendations .  The FAA has a strong sense of responsibility as the world-wide leader for aviation safety, but we do appreciate that it is the role of the NTSB to push us to attain ever more ambitious standards.

The historic safety record we are currently experiencing has been the subject of discussion before this Subcommittee many times recently.  Today’s aviation safety is not attributable to luck or good fortune, but rather it is due to hard work and innovative safety initiatives.  It is important that we put the safety record into the proper context in order to have a better understanding of why it has come about.

About half of all the aviation in the world takes place in the United States.  It is a large, complex system with strong regulation, with 116 major carriers and more than 2,300 smaller commuter and on-demand operators.  Our scheduled carriers alone operate over 32,000 flights each day.  Before an aircraft even enters our system, it has gone through a rigorous approval process against design standards that are the toughest in the world, followed by a separate approval process for production and quality control. 

There are many ways to measure safety, and we use different approaches as we constantly analyze risks and evaluate the benefits of safety measures.  One measure is simple and straight forward.  It compares the number of commercial aviation fatalities per 100 million people carried.  In the early days of commercial flight, the number of fatalities reflected the newness of the venture.  In 1946 we had about 1,300 fatalities for every 100 million people carried.  Jumping ahead to just the last decade, by 1994-1996, the current baseline period against which we measure our progress, that number had dropped to 45.7 fatalities for every 100 million people carried.  And while that record must be considered remarkable, it has been significantly improved upon.  The average from 2004 to 2006 has been 4.2 fatalities for every 100 million carried.

The safety improvement in commercial aviation is an incredible accomplishment, shared by the entire aviation community and it is a story that continues to improve.  Some of the major improvements that have contributed in this decline in fatalities include pressurized aircraft capable of flying above most weather, and precision guidance systems which allow safe landings in limited visibility.  The jet engine, the single greatest safety improvement, provides modern aircraft with large performance margins, and levels of reliability that are orders of magnitude better than the last piston engines in airline service.

But perhaps the most telling fact that explains the reduction in fatalities is the answer to the question, “What are the major causes of airliner accidents today?”  Because the answer is, “There are none.”  Let me cite three specific types of accidents which, like polio and smallpox, used to take a persistent toll, and which, like polio and smallpox, have been virtually eliminated through human ingenuity and determination in finding and implementing solutions.   I say virtually eliminated because I cannot say with certainty that we will never see one of these accidents again, but I can say with certainty that they will not return as persistent and recurring accident types.

Mid-Air Collisions

The last mid-air collision in which a U.S. Airliner was involved occurred 29 years ago.  While the installation of Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS) is the most often cited improvement, as with most safety improvements there was a layered approach, including implementation of virtually universal radar coverage in the U.S. National Airspace System, installation of conflict alert technology in the radar system, and effective training of controllers and pilots on the use of this technology.  This success story is instructive on two points as we look for technology to improve safety in other areas including the critical runway environment.  The first point is that the promise of a specific technology can only be safely realized through a methodical implementation process, which assures that safety will not be degraded by unintended consequences of implementation, for example problems like software glitches or high false warning rates.  The second point is that even with superior technology, the human element remains critical.  This was tragically demonstrated in the skies over Germany five years ago, as the pilot of a Russian airliner, which was equipped with a state-of-the-art TCAS system, failed to properly respond to a resolution advisory because it conflicted with an air traffic controller instruction.

Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT)

The last commercial airplane Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT) accident in the United States also occurred 29 years ago.  There are many parallels between the successful interventions addressing CFIT and mid-air collisions.  While the institution of ground proximity warning systems (GPWS) is cited as the single greatest safety enhancement to counter CFIT, again, a layered approach was implemented, which included wide radar coverage and minimum safe altitude warning technology.  Problems of false warnings had to be addressed as GPWS technology evolved, and the crew training element remained critical.   In fact, the last airliner CFIT in the United States occurred when the flight crew disabled the GPWS, after mistakenly thinking the alarm was due to a temporarily excessive descent rate.  The last CFIT accident for a U.S. commercial airplane outside the United States occurred 12 years ago in the non-radar environment near Cali, Columbia.  Since that accident commercial airplanes, along with all turbine-powered aircraft with six or more passenger seats, are required to be equipped with enhanced GPWS, which uses terrain mapping technology to provide earlier and more effective warnings.

Windshear

Again, while the on-board warning system is a key improvement, progress has been made on other important safety enhancements, such as ground-based windshear detection systems, prediction and detection of severe weather, displays of this key information to pilots, and in the critically important area of pilot training.   Modern realistic simulators that mimic the flight environment have provided situational training for pilots to recognize and either avoid or safely escape from severe windshear encounters.  Based on this unmatched record of continuous improvement, the aviation community faces the critical safety issues we are discussing today with confidence and with the unabated determination to further improve.

It is within this context that I would like to touch upon several of the safety areas on the NTSB’s Most Wanted List and what FAA has done in those areas, both in response to NTSB recommendations and on our own initiative.

Fuel Tank Explosions

In the aftermath of the TWA 800 tragedy, all aviation safety experts were focused on how to prevent center fuel tank explosions.  The accident fundamentally altered the assumptions held not only by the FAA and NTSB, but by the entire aviation community.  Preventing another such accident required us to look at different safety options, including how to eliminate ignition sources and how to reduce the flammability of the fuel tank.  In the 11 years that have passed since the accident, the FAA has been extremely effective in increasing the safety of fuel tanks.  We have issued more than 100 Airworthiness Directives (ADs) and a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) to reduce or eliminate ignition sources.  The ADs addressed a broad range of issues, including fuel pump manufacturing discrepancies, wear of fuel system wiring, shielding of fuel system components, and overheating solenoids.  The SFAR, issued in May 2001, changed the way airplanes are designed, operated and maintained.  By the end of 2002, the required manufacturer design reviews resulted in the identification of more than 200 previously unknown ignition sources.  As new ignition sources were identified, the FAA issued additional ADs to address them.  But the sheer volume of ignition sources confirmed that reducing fuel tank flammability was the necessary and complementary strategy to improve fuel tank safety.

Beginning in 1998, the FAA charged the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to evaluate options for reducing the flammable vapors in fuel tanks.  The first of two ARAC groups determined that on-board inerting was too costly and impractical.  In 2001, the second ARAC working group determined that a ground based inerting concept presented a new set of safety and operational issues at airports.  The ARAC group acknowledged that, at that time, on-board inerting options (most of which were used by the military in conditions very dissimilar to commercial aviation) were too complex, heavy, unreliable, and costly. 

What became clear was that the solution to this pressing problem required entirely new approach and FAA set about finding that solution.  FAA scientists and engineers challenged the assumptions that existed at that time and ultimately developed the first prototype inerting system for commercial airplanes.  The purpose of an inerting system is to replace the oxygen in the fuel tank with an inert gas, such as nitrogen, in order to prevent the ignition of fuel vapor.  This means that even if all ignition points have not been identified and dealt with, there is nothing that the ignition source can ignite, thus averting a catastrophic event.  On military aircraft, engine exhaust was typically used to produce the inert gas, but the technologies available could not meet the safety standards required by the FAA and were designed to operate only a few hours per day or per week compared to the average 14 hours per day flown by a commercial airplane.

More recently, nitrogen has been used to render the fuel tank inert.  Various techniques were considered for separating nitrogen from air for use in inerting.  In May 2002, the FAA unveiled a prototype on-board inerting system. We believe our prototype is the simplest and most reliable technology now known.  Finally, the FAA prototype is substantially lighter and smaller than the systems the military uses.  This combination amounted to an important breakthrough.

To remove the likelihood of explosion from unidentified ignition sources, the FAA expects to finalize a rule to require airplane operators to reduce the flammability levels of fuel tank vapors.  We believe fuel tank inerting is the best solution for meeting the standards outlined in the agency’s proposal.

The FAA is extremely proud of our work in this area.  A tragic aircraft accident resulted in the NTSB making safety recommendations for which there was no existing technology at the time.  Utilizing all resources available to us, we kept working the problem from all possible angles.  We challenged assumptions and created new solutions.  This is an example of the aviation community working at its best, combining ingenuity and resources to make flying safer.

Voice and Flight Data Recorders

The FAA views data recorders as important tools for the accident investigation, consequently, we are extremely sensitive to NTSB requests for improvements in this area.  The information provided by Digital Flight Data Recorders (DFDRs) and Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVRs) is often the cornerstone in determining the probable cause of an accident or incident.  Therefore, the FAA has had a generally positive reaction to NTSB recommendations for improvements to data recorders, including those for additional parameters to collect more information.  We are in the process of three rulemaking projects that will address a number of the NTSB recommendations on data recorders.  However, as much as FAA understands the priority NTSB places on data recorder recommendations, the fact is that there are no major accidents for which a probable cause determination has not been concluded.  The value of data recorders is realized only after an accident when the information has been collected and analyzed; they do not prevent accidents in and of themselves.  As accident rate attests, we must be extremely prudent with regard to how we proceed to improve aviation safety. 

The first of these rulemaking projects is an NPRM that proposed a series of improvements to Cockpit Voice Recorders and Flight Data Recorders.  Some of the proposed improvements are longer recording times, independent power sources for each box, and emergency power sources to keep the boxes running when the aircraft’s main power source is disrupted. 

The second rulemaking activity is an NPRM, published in November 2006, to specifically address flight data recorder (FDR) data filtering issues.  This proposed rule clarifies the FAA’s intent to ensure the accurate recording of flight data under all operating conditions.  This clarification will ensure that the NTSB has the most accurate data readily available to conduct investigations in a timely manner.

The third rulemaking project began in November 1999 when the FAA proposed the addition of flight recorder equipment to monitor the Boeing 737 rudder system after several rudder system anomalies had been identified.  The FAA made several safety improvements to the B737 rudder system, and subsequently mandated a redesign of the rudders system.  In September 2006, the FAA published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to assess the need for recording additional B737 rudder parameters. 

The improvements required by these three rulemaking efforts will achieve the right balance between enhancing accident investigation and wisely investing our safety resources.

Icing

This is another area where the Board has recommended that the FAA design the solution, test the effectiveness of the solution, and then mandate the solution.  As meteorologists will attest, simply understanding some of these icing phenomena is difficult and complex.  And then determining how to address these phenomena to assure safe aircraft operations takes time.  That’s why we have taken a multi-pronged approach to the icing issue by taking immediate safety actions, as well as performing longer-term research to improve our understanding of icing phenomena. 

One of our most effective tools to address safety issues is the airworthiness directive (AD).  We have issued over 100 ADs to address multiple threats from icing on over 50 different aircraft models.  These ADs cover safety issues ranging from crew operating procedures in the icing environment to direct design changes.  These ADs have had the effect of significantly reducing the icing risk to the overall fleet. 

Following the issuance of ADs, the FAA conducts general rulemaking intended to institutionally prevent the same icing risk for future airplane designs that were averted by implementing ADs on specific models. FAA is presently in the process of two rulemaking efforts on icing.  The first, which we anticipate publishing as a final rule, requires designers to demonstrate specific airplane performance handling qualities for flights in icing conditions.  The second rulemaking is an NPRM, published on April 26, 2007, entitled Activation of Ice Protection, which would introduce requirements to ensure timely activation of ice protection systems (IPS).  The proposed rule would require installation of an ice detector or activation of the IPS based on visible moisture and temperature..

The recommendation that we have not yet been able to address in rulemaking is related to a phenomenon known as supercooled large droplet (SLD) icing conditions.  This phenomenon has been a challenge because conditions that result in SLD are difficult to forecast and detect.  It is also not easy to reproduce in a test environment.  So, to first forecast and characterize SLD, then reproduce it, and finally evaluate its affect on aircraft operations has required extensive research.  Our research has engaged leading experts from academia, industry, and the government.  Due to the technical complexity, our activities continue today.  We are committed to identifying the right solution for long term design and operational requirements for the SLD threat.  In addition, we have issued numerous ADs that direct the crews of certain airplane designs to monitor and detect early signs of the onset of SLD conditions and to exit the area immediately.  These ADs serve as an effective interim measure until such time we complete our research on SLD and complete the necessary rulemaking.

Runway Incursions

Reducing the risk of runway incursions is one of the FAA’s top priorities.  The agency has been aggressively addressing the issue and has made progress reducing the most serious incidents, particularly those involving commercial aircraft.  The number of serious runway incursions – called Category A and B – has dropped by more than 40 percent since fiscal year 2001.  In 2006 there was only one serious incursion for every 2 million take-offs and landings.

The FAA has implemented important new technologies to allow tower controllers to see everything that takes place around them.  One of these is the Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS).  AMASS tracks ground movements and provides an alert so controllers can notify the crew if evasive action is required.  The FAA has installed AMASS at the nation’s top 34 airports.  ASDE-X, or Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model X, is an even more sophisticated surface detection technology.  While AMASS is radar-based, meaning signals might bounce off rain and fog, ASDE-X integrates data from a variety of sources, including surface movement radars located on air traffic control towers or remote towers, multi-lateration sensors, and aircraft transponders, to give controllers a more reliable view of airport operations, especially during bad weather. 

By fusing the data from these sources, ASDE-X is able to determine the position and identification of aircraft and transponder-equipped vehicles on the airport movement area, as well as aircraft flying within five miles of the airport.  Controllers in the tower see this information presented as a color display of aircraft and vehicle positions overlaid on a map of the airport’s runways, taxiways and approach corridors.  The FAA is in the process of enhancing ASDE-X with visual and audio alarms that will alert controllers to potential collisions.

The first ASDE-X was activated for operational use and testing at General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in June 2003.  In addition to Milwaukee, ASDE-X is now operational at T.F. Green Airport in Providence, RI; Orlando International Airport in Orlando, FL; Hobby Airport in Houston, TX; Lambert-St. Louis International in St. Louis, MO; Seattle-Tacoma International in Seattle, WA; Bradley International in Hartford, CT; and Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta, GA.  ASDE-X is scheduled to be deployed at all 35 OEP airports.

The FAA is also testing new technologies that will alert pilots to potential runway incursions.  One of these, called Runway Status Lights, is just what is sounds like – an advanced series of runway lights, not unlike traffic lights, that tell pilots whether or not runways are clear.  The operational evaluation of the runway entrance lights using ASDE-X surface surveillance was completed in June 2005 at Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport, and the system showed promising initial results.  An enhanced lighting configuration is being installed on a second runway at DFW this year.  The evaluation of Runway Status Lights with AMASS began last year at San Diego’s Lindbergh Field.  Other new technologies include an experimental system called the Final Approach Runway Occupancy Signal (FAROS), which is being tested at the Long Beach/Daugherty Field Airport in California.  FAROS is designed to prevent accidents on airport runways by activating a flashing light visible to landing pilots to warn them that the runway is occupied and hazardous.

Fatigue

Flight and Duty time rules have been in existence since the 1950s, and the 121 domestic and 135 scheduled rules were updated in 1985.  The rules on pilot flight time and rest have evolved along with advances in commercial air travel.  The FAA is confident that, overall, the airline industry complies with the FAA’s current rules. In the intervening time, much research has been done on fatigue, which has resulted in a better understanding of complex fatigue-related issues.  The research tells us that this issue does not easily lend itself to a set of prescriptive rules.  While the existing prescriptive rules have served us well, they do not allow for the flexibility needed to address the various flight regimes that exist. 

Understanding the limits of a strictly prescriptive regulatory regime, we worked to alleviate fatigue through other means.  Fatigue countermeasures were first developed by NASA, and include providing in-flight rest, as well as training crew members on the use of proper diet, exercising, and even caffeine to manage fatigue.  Fatigue countermeasures are covered during Crew Resource Management (CRM) initial training and during CRM recurrent training. 

It is also critical to understand the role that personal responsibility plays in fatigue and why prescriptive rules can only provide a framework for safety.  Crew members, mechanics, air traffic controllers, everyone involved in the safety of flight must make a personal commitment to report for work well rested and ready to perform their duties.  No regulatory scheme can instill that sense of personal commitment and professionalism. 

One thing we know, aviation operations will always challenge us in the area of flight time and rest.  Aircraft design allows for longer and longer flight times.  Recently, FAA issued approval to Delta Airlines for flights in excess of 16 hours from New York JFK to Mumbai, India.  This approval was our first implementation of a fatigue risk management approach.  Delta proposed – and we analyzed and approved – a detailed plan to assure the crew is rested before the flight begins, is provided appropriate rest throughout the flight, and have sufficient rest before conducting the return flight.

The procedure specifically addresses the impact to circadian rhythm, including the recognized affect of circadian law which occurs at specific times in the daily cycle.  This is an example of where we need to move in the future – away from prescriptive rules and into fatigue risk management.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me restate that the FAA’s first priority has always been, and will always be, safety.  As I said at the outset, we very much appreciate the unique relationship FAA has with the NTSB and we consider them a vital partner in advancing the safety of our Nation’s skies.  The interaction between the FAA and the NTSB is certainly a factor in the unparalleled safety record we have achieved in recent years.  NTSB has the responsibility to push us and the industry by identifying everything that could be done.  The FAA has the responsibility to determine the actions that will provide the greatest safety benefit.  We believe we have achieved the proper balance and are, understandably, proud of the safety record we are currently enjoying.  We will continue to strive to implement NTSB’s recommendations as quickly as prudence, technology and science will allow. 

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