Mid-Term Evaluation of National Program for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Economy Standards for Light Duty Cars and Trucks

Statement of

Paul Hemmersbaugh
Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

House Energy & Commerce Committee

Hearing on

Mid-Term Evaluation of National Program

Washington, DC

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Chairman Upton, Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Schakowsky, Vice Chairman Olson, Ranking Member Rush, and Members of the Committee:

My name is Paul Hemmersbaugh. I am the Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which has been entrusted by Congress to set Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the Administration’s National Program for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fuel economy standards for light duty cars and trucks. Today I would like to update you on the status of NHTSA’s work on the Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE), and answer any questions you may have.

At the outset, I want to emphasize a few general points about the two primary topics of this hearing—the Mid-Term Evaluation and the Draft Technical Assessment Report, or TAR.

First, the TAR is only the initial step of the MTE for light-duty vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards. The TAR is focused on the model years (MY) between 2022 and 2025, and will be used to inform future decisions about the standards for those years. The TAR is not a decision document. The TAR does not change the standards that are currently in place, either for NHTSA for model years between now and 2021, or for EPA for model years 2022 to 2025. Pursuant to statute, NHTSA will be conducting a de novo rulemaking to develop standards for these years.

Second, the Administration’s vehicle standards are working, and we are happy to report that consumers are buying more fuel efficient vehicles. While the TAR analysis focuses on the MY2022-2025 standards, it also discusses recent performance. Under current standards, stringency levels have been increasing steadily since model year 2012, and manufacturers have been meeting those standards. This occurred during a period in which the automotive industry has seen six consecutive years of sales increases and a new all-time sales record in 2015. That means consumers are buying, and benefiting from, more efficient vehicles with lower greenhouse gas emissions, and saving money on fuel costs.

Third, our new analysis confirms that the standards can be met largely with more efficient gasoline-powered cars. Automakers have a wide range of technology pathways to choose from, but advanced gasoline technologies will continue to be the predominant technologies, with generally moderate levels of what we call “strong hybrids” (like a Prius) and very low levels of full electrification (like a Chevy Bolt or a Tesla) needed to meet the standards. In fact, many of today’s vehicle models are already meeting future fuel economy targets. Many vehicles – from many manufacturers – are meeting future targets several years ahead of schedule.

I would like to take a moment to describe this important program. The National Program—developed by NHTSA and EPA in coordination with the California Air Resources Board—is designed to enable consumers to choose the car or truck they want, while ensuring that the vehicles they buy will continue to save on fuel costs and consumption, and cut greenhouse gas emissions. This joint program is overseen by NHTSA and EPA.

The Department of Transportation established national fuel economy standards following passage of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975. That Act directed the Secretary of Transportation (and by delegation, NHTSA) to set standards separately for passenger cars and light trucks at maximum feasible levels in each model year. The first fuel economy standards issued by NHTSA took effect in model year 1978. Congress has amended EPCA several times to provide further direction.

Through the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, Congress gave NHTSA additional authority for the CAFE program. It directed NHTSA to set attribute-based fuel economy standards for both cars and trucks, rather than the previous flat standards which imposed a single miles-per-gallon value. This approach has allowed NHTSA to implement a CAFE program that is more responsive to changes in consumer demand.

The standards that we currently have in place were specifically designed to preserve consumer choice while ensuring that light duty vehicles of every size continue to improve and yield savings for consumers and reduce petroleum consumption and emissions. They are based on annual “footprint curves” where each vehicle model has a target based on its size, which are used to calculate each manufacturer’s overall average annual requirement. Manufacturers can thus build vehicles that reflect consumer preference and real-world fleet mix, because their overall corporate average requirement will be calculated based the models and volume that they actually produce. The standards get more stringent across all types of vehicles over time, ensuring that all classes of vehicles improve. Working in that way ensures that – despite any future fluctuations in fuel prices, or new trends in consumers’ buying habits – manufacturers can continue to offer a wide array of cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles to their customers for the life of the program.

The agencies finalized the first set of National Program standards covering model years 2012-2016 in May 2010, and a second set of standards, covering MYs 2017-2025, in October 2012. The National Program establishes fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards that increase in stringency each year from model year 2012 through model year 2025. Presently, standards are projected to reach a level by 2025 that will nearly double fuel economy and cut greenhouse gas emissions in half as compared to model year 2008. The coordinated National Program allows automakers to build one single fleet of vehicles across the U.S. that satisfies all GHG and CAFE requirements. At the same time, these standards afford consumers a full range of vehicle choices that meet their needs.

NHTSA and EPA committed in the 2012 final rule to conduct a comprehensive mid-term evaluation for the model year 2022-2025 standards. Because EISA limits NHTSA to setting CAFE standards for five years at a time, the model year 2022-2025 CAFE provisions in the 2012 final rule were only “augural,” reflecting NHTSA's best judgment of what standards would have been the maximum feasible at that time, based on the information then available. The mid-term evaluation is an integral tool for informing NHTSA’s forthcoming rulemaking process to establish model years 2022-2025 CAFE standards, and the TAR is the first step in that process.

The TAR is a technical document designed to update and analyze relevant data and information, and to give stakeholders an opportunity to provide input on that data and analysis. Commenters can tell the agencies what they think we are getting right and what they think we are getting wrong, and suggest adjustments.

EPA, NHTSA, and CARB jointly developed the TAR, which we published in July, and it is presently available for public comment. The TAR is a comprehensive and robust report, informed by extensive stakeholder outreach and substantial technical work by the agencies over the past several years. It is worth repeating that the TAR is not a rulemaking or decision document and does not change existing standards or legal requirements under the National Program. Rather, the TAR, and public comment and input on it, will be used to inform and develop NHTSA’s NPRM for its de novo rulemaking for standards for model years 2022-2025.

The next step for NHTSA is to commence a de novo rulemaking, which will consider all relevant information, including comments submitted in response to the TAR, and conduct a fresh balancing of statutory factors in order to determine the maximum feasible CAFE standards for model years 2022–2025. Public input on the research and analysis presented in the TAR will inform NHTSA’s proposed rule and EPA’s MTE determination process, and the public will again have the opportunity to comment. NHTSA, EPA, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have closely coordinated efforts, in order to advance our commitment to maintaining a single National Program to address GHG emissions and fuel economy.

The TAR delivers on the agencies’ commitment to examine a wide range of factors that may affect the MY 2022-2025 standards. Those factors include developments in powertrain technology, vehicle electrification, mass reduction and vehicle safety impacts, the penetration of fuel efficient technologies in the marketplace, consumer acceptance of fuel-efficient technologies, trends in fuel prices, trends in the vehicle fleet, and many others.

Key Features and Findings of the TAR

I would like to highlight a few more of the key results of the TAR analysis.

The TAR shows that automakers are innovating in a time of record sales and fuel economy levels. It also shows that manufacturers are adopting fuel economy technologies at unprecedented rates. These technologies—such as gasoline direct injection, more sophisticated transmissions, weight reduction, aerodynamic improvements and start-stop systems—are helping automakers meet, and in many cases exceed, applicable standards. Moreover, these technologies are being adopted at costs similar to those that NHTSA anticipated in our 2012 rulemaking. In fact, many of today’s vehicle models are already meeting future fuel economy targets.

The TAR analysis also shows the industry can meet its targets using advanced gasoline technologies as the predominant technologies, generally with moderate levels of hybrids and very low levels of fully electric vehicles. This finding is consistent with what the National Academy of Sciences found in 2015. And, NHTSA’s assessment shows that the costs of meeting the augural standards for model years 2022-2025 are comparable to what the Agency found they would be in 2012, at about $1,200 per vehicle, while the average model year 2025 vehicle will save over $1,900 in fuel costs over its lifetime.

To conclude where I began, the TAR delivers on the agencies’ commitment to examine the full range of technological, safety, and marketplace factors that affect the MY 2022-2025 standards; it shows that the Administration’s vehicle standards are working, it shows that technologies that reduce emissions and improve fuel economy are entering the fleet at faster rates than originally expected.

On behalf of NHTSA, I commit to you that our door is open and we are listening, and will continue to listen, to stakeholder feedback and input that will inform the eventual setting of CAFE standards for model years 2022 and beyond. NHTSA will continue to work with Congress and stakeholders as it seeks to meet its statutory obligations and implement the National Program.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions.

Implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE RANDOLPH BABBITT,
ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

ON

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009.

JUNE 25, 2009.

Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, and Members of the Committee:

I welcome the opportunity to testify today on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) progress in implementing our responsibilities under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA or Recovery Act). It is a pleasure to appear with my fellow modal representatives from the Department of Transportation (DOT) to outline our achievements in meeting the very challenging deadlines that the ARRA established. We believe this is a real success story. Under Secretary LaHood’s “Tiger Team” effort, the Department has established a rigorous approach to implementing and overseeing the funds made available by Congress. This morning I will first briefly outline the requirements of the Act for FAA’s programs and then provide the Committee with the status of our efforts so far in putting these funds to work on worthwhile airport projects and air traffic facilities and equipment projects that are putting people to work on improving and strengthening the Nation’s aviation infrastructure.

Just a little over four months ago, Congress passed and President Obama signed ARRA into law. The Act provides a total of $48.1 billion for DOT’s transportation programs. The purposes of the law are clear: to preserve and create jobs; promote economic recovery; and invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits. The Act also makes clear that Congress and the President want strong and tough oversight of the use of the stimulus funds. All Federal agencies are charged with managing and expending economic recovery funds so as to achieve the purposes of the Act, including commencing expenditures and activities as quickly as possible consistent with prudent management.

Of the $48.1 billion appropriated to DOT, the FAA received a total of $1.3 billion for aviation infrastructure improvements. $1.1 billion of that amount was for grants to individual airport owners for airport development such as runways, taxiways, aprons, airfield lighting, terminal buildings and high priority safety or security equipment. The remaining $200 million was provided for the FAA’s Facilities and Equipment program to help upgrade FAA’s power and navigation systems and modernize air traffic facilities.

Airport Project Funds

Under the FAA’s normal Airport Improvement Program (AIP), funding is made available to the FAA from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and is authorized as contract authority. Much of this funding is distributed through grants based on a statutory formula. A portion of AIP is made available through discretionary grants. AIP grants are subject to various eligibility and program management requirements under title 49, United States Code.

On the other hand, the ARRA funds were made available to FAA from the General Fund, and, while they were not specifically authorized under title 49 for projects under the AIP, the ARRA statute clearly indicated that the stimulus funds for airport purposes were to be administered as discretionary funds and be subject to the requirements applicable to the normal AIP. This means that all normally required grant documentation and filing applies to the administration of ARRA projects; and all normal AIP grant conditions, certifications and assurances apply, including grant assurances related to Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) participation. The ARRA also contains express Buy American and Federal wage rate requirements. As discretionary grants, the stimulus funding is not subject to AIP formulas, apportionments, or minimum set-asides.

Another noteworthy distinction is that there is a 100% federal share for the ARRA airport grant program, meaning that there is no local match required for airport grants issued under the Act. Under normal AIP, the local match would be 5 to 25% of eligible project cost.

As this Committee is well aware, the Recovery Act sets forward some very specific timelines for award and project completion. For FAA, half of the $1.1 billion made available for airport grants--$550 million--was required to be awarded within 120 days of enactment of the Act, or by last Wednesday, June 17, 2009. On behalf of the President, Secretary LaHood, and the hard-working FAA airport staff, I am very pleased to report that we not only met that milestone, we exceeded it and actually awarded $ 725 million, or 66% by the June 17^thdeadline. This funding is going directly into the economy now and making a difference both in the short term supporting as many as 7,900 jobs as well as the long term with high value infrastructure improvements.

Under the terms of ARRA, the remaining funds must be awarded within one year of enactment of the Act, or by February 16, 2010. Consistent with the goal of the Recovery Act to put these funds to work as quickly as possible, FAA’s internal objective is to have at least 90% of the airport grant funding, or $988 million, awarded before the end of this fiscal year.

The ARRA funds will be generally available through September 30, 2010, for recovery and reobligation. Thereafter any remaining unobligated funds return to the U.S. Treasury.

With regard to how we selected projects for these grant funds, we distributed the ARRA funding to airports under the same, audit-tested criteria as the existing AIP discretionary grant program. We determined the distribution of funds through our existing allocation process and national priority system. The airport community is very familiar with these standards and processes. In contrast to other ARRA transportation funding programs where funds are delivered by formula to States and local governments ahead of actual project selection, our ARRA airport grant program requires that projects be designed and bid before grant awards. While there may be more time upfront required for planning and bidding airport projects before the funding is released, this pays off ultimately because project construction can begin shortly after grant award. This system results in planned, ready-to-go projects of lasting value.

With FAA’s grant process as the guiding beacon, FAA identified a candidate pool of the highest priority projects by region, and distributed a tentative funding allocation to the nine FAA Regions to allow each Region to initiate the four-step grant process described above. Additionally, FAA took specific action to assure that ARRA funds were directed to the highest priority projects that could meet the time schedule and “readiness standards” required, as noted above.

First, within the existing statutory priorities, preference was given to those projects that demonstrated they had or were able to meet all statutory requirements necessary to proceed, i.e. that they were truly “ready-to-go”. For purposes of ARRA administration, “ready-to-go” was defined as a project that:

had an environmental determination;
had received all requisite airspace approvals;
appeared on the candidate Airport’s approved Airport Layout Plan;
if required, had a completed FAA-approved benefit-cost analysis;
had design substantially complete;
would be bid prior to the time of grant award;
would be able to issue a “Notice to Proceed” to the contractor within 30 calendar days of a Grant Offer;
had the airport sponsor’s respective certifications as to bid and anticipated Notice to Proceed; and
was expected to be completed in two years, or no later than February 16, 2011.

Next, project selection for ARRA funds was based upon existing statutory priorities as detailed within our normal AIP criteria, known as the National Priority Rating (NPR) System. The NPR system is a numerical model that is one of several tools we use to prioritize airport development. The values generated by the model serve to categorize airport development in accordance with agency goals and objectives. The model generates values between 0 and 100 with 100 generally being the most consistent with agency goals. In general, in order to ensure that ARRA funding benefited the highest priority needs quickly, we considered funding only those projects scoring a 62 or higher on this scale (compared to the regular AIP where funding can be directed to projects scoring lower on the scale).

As a result, the vast majority of the funding allocations, over 80%, are for enduring, high quality, high priority airside infrastructure to preserve the nation’s airports’ runways taxiways and aprons necessary for the landing, take-off and surface movement of the country’s civil aircraft fleet. The balance of the ARRA funding is for renovation or replacement of aging terminal buildings at smaller commercial airports, new airport construction, safety and security projects, and various high priority obstruction removal, lighting and guidance signage installation projects.

We did not provide ARRA funding to any project that was planned for funding in Fiscal Year 2009. These projects were not considered for Recovery Act funding because the legislation requires that economic recovery funds supplement and not supplant planned expenditures from regular AIP grants, airport-generated revenues or from other State and local sources for airport development activities. The Recovery Act also directed that priority be given to projects that could be completed within two years of the date of enactment of the Act, or Feb 17, 2011. FAA interprets the term “completed” as when construction or acquisition of equipment is finished as determined by a final project inspection.

In addition to time deadlines, “supplement and not supplant” criteria, and the NPR model, and in keeping with the intent of the law to create jobs throughout the United States, FAA was mindful of one final consideration. FAA monitored the allocation of ARRA funding to guide the distribution so as to attempt to reflect historical patterns of regular AIP grants, including sensitivity to geographical distribution and by types of airports (general aviation versus commercial service). In fact, the announced projects represent ARRA funding in every State for airport grants.

Finally, FAA targeted airports with projects that addressed airport safety and security, preserving aging infrastructure, reducing runway incursions, increasing capacity, and mitigating environmental impact of aviation. The FAA also targeted several special emphasis investments that will greatly benefit local communities such as Runway Safety Areas (RSA), airfield pavement rehabilitation projects, and non-hub terminal projects that represent aging facilities in smaller markets that are difficult to fund through local fees and charges.

For example, we are providing ARRA funding to:

Improve the Runway Safety Areas at Pauls Valley Municipal Airport in the City of Pauls Valley, Oklahoma. This project will enhance safety at the airport and is expected to create or sustain 18 jobs.
Sound attenuate educational areas within the Hitch Elementary School in Chicago, Illinois. This project will improve the learning environment of students by reducing aircraft noise inside the school and is expected to create or sustain 65 jobs.
Construct a new airport that will primarily serve air ambulances and medical aircraft that support the Rosebud Indian Heal Service Hospital in Mission Sioux, South Dakota. This project is expected to create or sustain 45 jobs.
Construct a replacement passenger terminal at MBS International Airport in Saginaw Michigan to replace the existing terminal that has outlived its useful life and has become extremely costly to maintain. The ARRA funding provided is expected to create or sustain 138 jobs.

Facilities and Equipment Funds

As noted at the outset, in addition to the $1.1 billion for airport projects, the Recovery Act made available an additional $200 million for FAA’s Facilities and Equipment (F&E) program to support FAA infrastructure modernization and sustainment. F&E projects represent the necessary facilities and equipment, as the name implies, to support air traffic operations. The funding is being used to replace airport traffic control towers, improve air route traffic control center buildings, replace and improve power systems and implement navigation and landing system components. Specific examples include: replacement of elevators and exterior structural walls at many of our en-route centers, installation of instrument landing and runway lighting systems, replacement of components such as lamp monitoring equipment, fuel storage tank replacements, installation of equipment for grounding, bonding, and lightning protection, replacement of engine generator and power supply systems, and replacement of heating/ventilation/air conditioning systems for unmanned navigation equipment shelters. These projects save the agency money because of the increased energy efficiency and decreased maintenance and repair costs.

In accordance with the allocation of the F&E funding set out in the Recovery Act, the distribution of the $200 million will be as follows:

Power Systems $50 Million 90 Sites
ATCT/TRACON Facilities $80 Million 3 Towers being replaced
ARTCC Modernization $50 Million 18 Centers
Navigation/Landing Facilities $20 Million 145 Sites

For F&E, we do not have specific requirements that are applicable to the airport grant funds (i.e. the requirement to obligate 50% within 120 days). However, F&E obligations using ARRA funds through June 17, 2009 were $47.9 million. We project an additional $30.2 million by the end of this month and our plan calls for total obligations of $129.47 million by September 2009, $158.16 million by March 2010, and $200 million by July 2010.

All of these projects are work that the agency had planned. That is, they were part of our corporate work plan; the ARRA funding allows us to accelerate the plan. We are using many existing FAA contracts that were originally competitively awarded, to accomplish the work and begin the projects quickly. The major advantage of having Recovery Act funds for F&E is that we are able to accelerate needed improvements to our facilities or start replacement projects sooner. We look forward to reaping the benefits of such projects, including greater energy efficiency and cost savings resulting from the extension of the operating life of our facilities.

Transparency Is Paramount

All funds issued under this Act are subject to extraordinary scrutiny with strict reporting requirements. Under our oversight system and schedule, airport project grant recipients must submit periodic reports to the FAA on the use of Recovery Act funds no later than 90 days (5/18/09), 180 days (8/16/09), one year (2/17/10), two years (2/17/11), and three years (2/17/12) after the date of enactment of the Recovery Act. These reports will be collected and compiled by the FAA and transmitted through the Department to Congress and include the following:

the amount of Recovery Act funds appropriated, allocated, obligated, and outlayed;
the number of projects that have been put out to bid and have been awarded;
where work has begun and been completed;
the amount of Recovery Act funds associated with such projects;
estimates of jobs created or sustained, including job years created and the total increase in employment since the date of enactment;
actual expenditures by each grant recipient from economic recovery funding; and
actual expenditures as compared to the level of expenditures that were planned to occur during such time as of the date of enactment of the Act.

Currently, FAA is making all ARRA program information publicly available by posting the information on the FAA Recovery Act website as updated project information becomes available for both airport and Facilities & Equipment projects. The information available for the public includes the amount of Recovery Act funds received, expended, and obligated, on a project basis.

In addition, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has recently issued guidance for ARRA recipient reporting data that must be submitted to OMB each quarter. The first cycle for this recipient reporting will begin in October 2009. The reporting requirements include a detailed list of all projects for which Recovery Act funds were expended or obligated, and detailed information on subcontracts or subgrants awarded by the recipient. FAA has ensured that the provisions for outreach and education, and data collection associated with those requirements were put in place.

To ensure that the grantees were aware of these additional reporting requirements and to ensure compliance, FAA included special conditions within each grant and contract requiring this reporting as a condition of acceptance. Similarly, the Facilities and Equipment prime contractors have been directed to complete a Monthly Prime and Subcontractor Employment Report for each project location. This guidance was incorporated into FAA’s Acquisition Management System (AMS) on March 31, 2009. Each existing contract and future contract that uses ARRA funding contains the AMS job reporting requirements.

Finally, before issuing the first grant, FAA conducted proactive outreach to external stakeholders and the Office of the Inspector General through meetings and conferences throughout the country to ensure all parties were committed to the processes necessary to meet the ARRA objectives of timely, high priority and transparent project development. As a result, FAA published specific written guidance for airports and the public that detailed how FAA intended to implement the effective administration of ARRA grants.

Conclusion

In slightly over 120 days since the FAA received its $1.1 billion allotment of ARRA funds for airport infrastructure improvements, FAA has identified and announced tentative funding (subject to timely receipt of construction bids) for nearly all of the funding available by ARRA. Because of the long lead time associated with constructing complex airport infrastructure projects, the vast majority of the highest priority, ready-to-go projects had already been identified in FAA’s 3-5 year Airport Capital Improvement Plan. This reflects well on the long history of project planning coordination between individual airport sponsors and the FAA.

The FAA also continues to proceed rapidly with deploying the Recovery Act’s facilities and equipment funding to accelerate projects that will generate environmental improvements, cost savings, and improved facility conditions for our employees. We are doing all of this transparently, and cognizant of ARRA’s primary short-term goal: to put people back to work across the country.

Mr. Chairman, the FAA is proud of what we have accomplished to date. We are in the midst of millions of dollars of bids being received daily. The bidding process is robust and the savings resulting from excellent bid results is allowing us to stretch the dollars--to fund even more ARRA projects then originally expected. We thank you for your support in this effort and will continue to keep you informed about our progress.

That concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you and the Members of the Committee may have.

Regional Air Carriers and Pilot Workforce Issues

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE RANDOLPH BABBITT,
ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION,

ON

REGIONAL AIR CARRIERS AND PILOT WORKFORCE ISSUES.

JUNE 11, 2009.

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

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) role in the oversight of air carriers. Let me begin by saying that we at the FAA mourn the tragic loss of Colgan Air Flight 3407 deeply. This is an agency dedicated to aviation safety; any loss is felt keenly by us all. Likewise, our sympathies go out to the families and loved ones of the passengers and crew of Air France Flight 447.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) conducted a public hearing May 12-14, 2009 on the Colgan Air crash. Several issues came to light regarding pilot training and qualifications, flight crew fatigue, and consistency of safety standards and compliance between air transportation operators. Given that the NTSB has not yet concluded its investigation, I cannot speak today to any of the potential findings. I can, however, outline for you the FAA’s oversight responsibility with regard to safety oversight of operators, pilot training and qualifications, and flight and duty times for flight crew, and my focus on aviation safety as my top priority.

One Level of Safety

In the mid-1990s, the FAA revised its regulations on air carrier safety standards to reflect “one level of safety,” requiring regional air carriers to operate under the same rules and at the same level of safety as their major airlines counterparts. I am proud to say that while I was president of the Air Line Pilots Association, I led the efforts on working with the FAA to make these changes.

Now, all air carriers that operate aircraft with 10 or more seats are required to meet the same safety standards and are subject to the same level of safety oversight across the board. Specifically, the air carriers are required to comply with the regulations embodied in Part 121 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (Part 121).

FAA safety oversight for these carriers is conducted through the comprehensive Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS). ATOS has three fundamental elements: design assessment, performance assessment, and risk management.

Design assessment ensures an air carrier’s operating systems meet regulatory and safety standards.
Performance assessments confirm that an air carrier’s operating systems produce intended results, including mitigation or control of hazards and associated risks.
Risk management process identifies and controls hazards and allocates FAA resources according to risk-based priorities.

Under ATOS, FAA’s primary responsibilities are: (1) to verify that an air carrier is capable of operating safely and complies with the regulations and standards prescribed by the Administrator before issuing an air carrier operating certificate and before approving or accepting air carrier safety programs; (2) to re-verify that an air carrier continues to meet regulatory requirements when changes occur by conducting periodic safety reviews; and (3) to continually validate the performance of an air carrier’s approved and accepted programs for the purpose of continued operational safety.

Pilot Training and Qualifications

The FAA offers several types of pilot certification. The typical FAA certification progression for an airline pilot is Private Pilot (a license to fly oneself and others, without charge, under Visual Flight Rules), Commercial Pilot (a license needed to fly for compensation or hire as a second in command), and Airline Transport Pilot (a license to fly as a captain for an airline), with an Instrument Rating (a rating that one is proficient at using instrument navigational aids and other avionics) usually added to the Private Pilot certificate. For each level of pilot certification, the individual must demonstrate aeronautical knowledge as well as flight proficiency. Each new level of certification requires the satisfactory completion of the previous rating. In other words, it is not permissible for an individual to receive a Commercial Pilot certificate without first completing the requirements of the Private Pilot Certificate. For airline pilots to be captains of aircraft larger than 12,500 pounds, or any jet aircraft, they must complete specialized training for the specific aircraft and test for a type rating in that aircraft.

The requirements for each of these pilot certifications, including the Instrument Rating, are summarized below:

1. Private Pilot (Minimum of 40 hours at certification)

a. Aeronautical knowledge Complete a comprehensive ground school and pass a written test composed of at least the following: aircraft systems, weight and balance, aeronautical charts, Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), airport operations, national air space, emergency procedures, communications, and navigation requirements. The ground school must be conducted by an authorized instructor.

b. Flight proficiency Minimum of 40 hours, composed of at least 20 hrs from an approved instructor, 10 hrs of solo, 3 hrs of night time, and 5 solo hrs of cross country. Pass a flight check administrated by the FAA or designated evaluator.

2. Commercial Pilot (Minimum of 250 Hours)

a. Aeronautical knowledge FARs, accident reporting procedures, aerodynamics, meteorology, weather reports and forecast, safe operations of the aircraft, weight and balance, performance charts, aircraft limitations, aeronautical charts, navigation, aeronautical decision making, aircraft systems, maneuvers procedures and emergency operations, night and high altitude operations, and operations in the national airspace system.

b. Flight proficiency Minimum of 250 hours to include day, night and flight by reference to aircraft instruments. Pass a flight check administrated by the FAA or designated evaluator.

3. Instrument Rating

a. Aeronautical knowledge Must complete ground training on instrument flight conditions and procedures. Pass an aeronautical test composed of the following: FARs, Air Traffic Control (ATC) system, instrument procedures, Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) navigation, instrument approach procedures, use of IFR charts, weather reports and for casts, recognition of critical weather situations, aeronautical decision making, and crew resource management.

b. Flight proficiency Minimum of 50 hrs cross country as Pilot in Command (PIC). 40 hours of actual or simulated flight time, 15 hrs with an authorized instrument instructor. Pass a flight check administrated by the FAA or designated evaluator.

4. Airline Transport Pilot (Minimum of 1,500 Hours)

a. Aeronautical knowledge FARs, meteorology, Knowledge of effects of weather, general weather and Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) use, interpretation of weather charts, maps and forecasts, operations in the national airspace system, wind sheer and micro burst awareness, air navigation, ATC procedures, instrument departure and approach procedures, enroute operations, airport operations, weight and balance, aircraft loading, aerodynamics , aircraft performance, human factors, aeronautical decision making, and Crew Resource Management (CRM). Must pass an FAA test on these subjects.

b. Flight proficiency 1500 hours total time. 500 hrs cross country, 400 hours night time. Pass a flight check administrated by the FAA or designated evaluator on the maneuvers required by the FAA’s Airline Transport Pilots Practical Test Standards.

In addition to these FAA certifications, airline pilots receive initial and additional recurrent training through the air carriers for whom they work. These training programs are evaluated and approved by the FAA. An air carrier training program contains curricula, facilities, instructors, courseware, instructional delivery methods, and testing and checking procedures. These training programs must meet the requirements of Part 121, the regulations for commercial air carriers, to ensure that each crewmember is adequately trained for each aircraft, duty position, and kind of operation in which the person serves. An air carrier or operator’s training program is divided into several categories of training that are specific to the operator, and which may include initial training for new hires, initial training on equipment, transition training, upgrade training, recurrent training, and requalification training.

Training programs are approved by the FAA in two stages: initial training approval and final approval. Initial approval consists of a thorough review by the Principal Operations Inspector (POI) for that carrier of the training program to ensure that all applicable requirements of Part 121 have been met and are covered in the training program. Once initial approval is granted by the POI, the POI will observe several training classes, which include ground training and flight (simulator) training.

The quality of the training is determined by an evaluation of passing scores of the pilots. Direct observation by the POI of testing and checking is an effective method for determining whether learning has occurred. Examining the results of tests, such as oral or written tests or flight checks, provides a quantifiable method for measuring training effectiveness. The POI must examine and determine the causal factors of significant failure trends. The POI periodically monitors the training and evaluates failure rates to determine whether the training program continues to comply with FAA standards, and also evaluates the program.

On January 12, 2009, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding upgraded training standards for pilots, flight attendants and dispatchers. This proposal is the most comprehensive upgrade to FAA training requirements in 20 years and was drafted working with an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) that included pilots, flight attendants, airlines, training centers, FAA, and others.

While aviation has incorporated many technologies over the years to prevent accidents by addressing findings from NTSB accident investigations, human factors remain a source of risk. Improving human performance is a central element to improving safety. Thus, the FAA proposal is aimed at using best practices and tools to help pilots, flight attendants, and dispatchers (1) avoid the mistake and (2) respond better if there is a mistake made.

The aviation industry has moved to performance-based training rather than prescriptive training to reflect that the way people learn has changed. New technology, particularly simulators, allows high-fidelity training for events that we never could have trained to in the past using an aircraft, e.g., stall recovery. We now have qualitative measures to measure actual transfer of knowledge. We can determine proficiency based on performance, not just on the number of hours of training. While the major airlines are already doing this type of training, our proposed rule incorporates best practices and tools so that all operators will use the upgraded standards.

One of the pilot training issues that has arisen in the wake of the Colgan Air investigation is that of failed check rides and whether air carriers are informed of a pilot-applicant’s failures. A check ride is a practical examination given by an FAA check airman or airline employer that checks or tests the proficiency of the pilot to perform certain skills. Under the Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996 (PRIA), air carriers must obtain the last five years’ performance and disciplinary records for a prospective pilot from their previous employer. These records would include information regarding initial and recurrent training, qualifications, proficiency, or professional competence including comments and evaluations made by a check airman.

PRIA also requires carriers to obtain records for a pilot from the FAA. FAA records regarding pilot certification are protected by the Privacy Act of 1974. However, PRIA requires carriers to obtain a limited waiver from prospective pilots allowing for the release of information concerning their current airman certificate and associated type ratings and limitations, current airman medical certificates, including any limitations, and summaries of closed FAA legal enforcement actions resulting in a finding by the Administrator of a violation that was not subsequently overturned. Although PRIA does not require carriers to obtain a release from prospective pilots for the entirety of the pilot’s airman certification file, including Notices of Disapproval for flight checks for certificates and ratings, FAA guidance suggests to potential employers that they may find this additional information helpful in evaluating the pilot. In order to obtain this additional information, a carrier must obtain a Privacy Act waiver from the pilot-applicant.

Pilot Fatigue

Another one of the concerns that has come out of the NTSB’s investigation is the issue of pilot fatigue and what factors may contribute to pilot fatigue. This is an area of particular interest to me. The FAA regulates flight and duty limitations for all Part 121 pilots conducting domestic operations. The “crew rest” elements of the regulation are designed to mitigate chronic and acute fatigue, primarily through limitations on flight hours and defined hours of rest relative to flight hours. For example, the regulation outlines:

No more than 30 flight hours in any 7 consecutive days
At least 24 hours of consecutive rest during any 7 consecutive days
Varying rest requirements relative to hours flown in any 24 hour period

The rule also defines rest period activities and prohibitions, and provides provisions for circumstances under which flight time limitations can be exceeded, such as in adverse weather operations. As of late 2000, an FAA legal interpretation clarified that under these rules a pilot crew member, flying under domestic flight rules, must “look back” 24 hours and find eight hours of uninterrupted rest before beginning any flight segment.

Pilots also have a regulatory responsibility to not fly when they are not fit, including being fatigued. Thus, while the carrier schedules and manages pilots within these limitations and requirements, the pilot has the responsibility to rest during the periods provided by the regulations. The FAA has long held that it is the responsibility of both the operator and the flight crewmember to prevent fatigue, not only by following the regulations, but also by acting intelligently and conscientiously while serving the traveling public. This means taking into consideration weather conditions, air traffic, health of each flight crewmember, or any other circumstances (personal problems, etc.) that might affect the flight crewmember’s alertness or judgment on a particular flight.

The FAA has initiated a number of fatigue mitigation efforts in recent years:

The FAA took steps in 2006 to address fatigue mitigations for Ultra-Long Range flights (more than 16 hours of flight time) and associated extended duty times.
The FAA held the 2008 Aviation Fatigue Management Symposium to provide the industry the latest information on fatigue science, mitigation, and management. (Symposium proceedings are available on www.faa.gov.)
The FAA is in the process of writing an Advisory Circular regarding fatigue that incorporates information from the Symposium.

However, because piloting is a highly mobile profession, one of the persistent challenges is that pilots are often domiciled in places that are hundred of miles from the airlines’ bases of operations, e.g., the pilot lives in Los Angeles but is based out of the airline employer’s Atlanta operations. This means that the pilot’s “commute” is a five hour plane ride. Though the commuting pilot is riding in the jump seat or in a passenger seat, she is not technically considered to be on duty during that time. Whether this has an impact on pilot fatigue is something that the FAA continues to monitor and examine to determine whether it is an appropriate area for regulation.

As the NTSB moves forward on its investigation and presents its findings, the FAA continues to examine the facts that are coming to light. We continue our vigilance in assessing the safety of our system and taking the appropriate steps to improve that. While we are in an extremely safe period in aviation history, the Colgan Air accident and the loss of Air France 447 remind us that we cannot rest on our laurels, that we must remain alert and aware of the challenges in our aviation system, and that we must continue to work to enhance the safety of the system. This is a business where one mistake is one too many.

Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you again for inviting me here today to discuss the FAA’s role in the oversight of air carriers. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Aviation Safety: FAA's Role in the Oversight of Air Carriers

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE RANDOLPH BABBITT,
ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

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

ON

AVIATION SAFETY: FAA’S ROLE IN THE OVERSIGHT OF AIR CARRIERS.

JUNE 10, 2009.

Chairman Dorgan, Senator DeMint, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) role in the oversight of air carriers. Let me begin by saying that we at the FAA mourn the tragic loss of Colgan Air Flight 3407 deeply. This is an agency dedicated to aviation safety; any loss is felt keenly by us all. Likewise, our sympathies go out to the families and loved ones of the passengers and crew of Air France Flight 447.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) conducted a public hearing May 12-14, 2009 on the Colgan Air crash. Several issues came to light regarding pilot training and qualifications, flight crew fatigue, and consistency of safety standards and compliance between air transportation operators. Given that the NTSB has not yet concluded its investigation, I cannot speak today to any of the potential findings. I can, however, outline for you the FAA’s oversight responsibility with regard to safety oversight of operators, pilot training and qualifications, and flight and duty times for flight crew, and my focus on aviation safety as my top priority.

One Level of Safety

In the mid-1990s, the FAA revised its regulations on air carrier safety standards to reflect “one level of safety,” requiring regional air carriers to operate under the same rules and at the same level of safety as their major airlines counterparts. I am proud to say that while I was president of the Air Line Pilots Association, I led the efforts on working with the FAA to make these changes.

Now, all air carriers that operate aircraft with 10 or more seats are required to meet the same safety standards and are subject to the same level of safety oversight across the board. Specifically, the air carriers are required to comply with the regulations embodied in Part 121 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (Part 121).

FAA safety oversight for these carriers is conducted through the comprehensive Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS). ATOS has three fundamental elements: design assessment, performance assessment, and risk management.

Design assessment ensures an air carrier’s operating systems meet regulatory and safety standards.
Performance assessments confirm that an air carrier’s operating systems produce intended results, including mitigation or control of hazards and associated risks.
Risk management process identifies and controls hazards and allocates FAA resources according to risk-based priorities.