STATEMENT OF

ANNE S. FERRO
ADMINISTRATOR
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND MERCHANT MARINE,
INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY
UNITED STATES SENATE

CHALLENGES IN MOTORCOACH SAFETY

March 30, 2011

Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding the very serious issue of motorcoach safety.

As we know all too well, March has been the worst month in recent years for motorcoach safety, with two horrific crashes within a three-day period causing 17 fatalities and numerous injuries.  The first crash occurred in New York on March 12 with 15 fatalities, and the second occurred in New Jersey on March 14 with 2 fatalities. 

Please allow me to begin my testimony by extending my deepest sympathy to the families who lost loved ones in these crashes and to assure them that we at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) are committed to doing everything we can to prevent tragedies like this from happening again.  We have significantly increased our regulatory and enforcement actions over the past several years to improve passenger safety. However, the tragic events this month indicate that we have more to do at the Federal level, and in working with our State and local enforcement partners. 

MOTORCOACH SAFETY ACTION PLAN (THE PLAN)

Safety is the U.S. Department of Transportation's number one priority across all modes of transportation.  In 2009, Secretary LaHood sought to make significant improvements to motorcoach safety by tasking all of the appropriate DOT agencies to work together to establish a unified Motorcoach Safety Action Plan (Plan).  The Department released the Plan in November 2009.  It lays out concrete steps for addressing the driver-related cause of crashes, fatalities, and injuries and enhancing motorcoach: driver performance; vehicle safety and maintenance; operator safety oversight; crash avoidance; and occupant protection.  The Plan also focuses on the Department’s strategy for improving data collection and analysis for motorcoach operations. 

Based upon our review of motorcoach crash data we determined that driver fatigue, driver behavior, vehicle rollover, occupant ejection, and operator maintenance issues contribute to the majority of motorcoach crashes, fatalities, and injuries.  As a result, FMCSA had responsibility for four priority safety-related action items in the Plan. FMCSA’s priority action items are:

1. Initiate rulemaking to require electronic on-board recording devices on all motorcoaches to better monitor drivers’ duty hours and manage fatigue.
2. Initiate rulemaking to propose prohibiting texting and limiting the use of cellular telephones and other devices by motorcoach drivers.\
3. Enhance oversight of carriers attempting to evade sanctions.
4. Establish minimum knowledge requirements for applicants seeking FMCSA authority to transport passengers.

We made substantial progress in each of these areas and I would like to take a few minutes to provide you with an update.

ELECTRONIC ON-BOARD RECORDERS

On April 5, 2010, the Agency took a significant step toward reducing the number of fatigue related crashes by publishing a final rule mandating the use of electronic on-board recorders (EOBRs) by motor carriers that transport passengers or property and that demonstrate serious non-compliance with the hours of service (HOS) rules.  This action will reduce the likelihood of falsified or incomplete records of duty status.  The final rule establishes: 1) new performance-oriented standards for EOBR technology; 2) a mandate for certain motor carriers to use EOBRs to remediate regulatory noncompliance (a remedial directive); and 3) incentives to promote voluntary EOBR use by all carriers.  It is expected that approximately 5,700 motor carriers each year will be required to use EOBRs.

On February 1, 2011, the Agency published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to expand the requirement for motor carriers to use EOBRs and to require nearly all motor carriers to systematically monitor their drivers’ compliance with HOS requirements.  Specifically, FMCSA proposed mandatory installation and use of EOBRs in interstate commercial motor vehicles currently required to complete records of duty status, including passenger carrier operations.  Additionally, the preamble to the rulemaking requests data and information about the safety of short-haul passenger carriers that currently are not required to maintain records of duty status.

The proposed rule would also establish specific requirements for supporting documents that motor carriers are required to obtain and keep, as required by section 113(a) of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act (HMTAA). Comments on the NPRM are due May 23, 2011.

DISTRACTED DRIVING

Driver distraction is a serious safety problem that must be addressed to continue improving commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety.  FMCSA developed an approach that involves Federal rulemaking, outreach, and enforcement.

On September 27, 2010, FMCSA published a Final Rule prohibiting texting by all CMV drivers while operating in interstate commerce and imposing civil penalties on drivers and motor carriers that violate the prohibition. The final rule also provides for commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders’ disqualification when they have multiple convictions for violating a State or local law or ordinance on motor vehicle traffic control that prohibits texting.  We are working closely with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and with our State and local safety partners in developing enforcement strategies for those who violate this rule.

On December 21, 2010, FMCSA published an NPRM that would restrict the use of hand-held mobile telephones.   The Agency proposed new driver disqualification sanctions for interstate drivers of CMVs who fail to comply with this Federal restriction and for CDL holders who have multiple convictions for violating a State or local law or ordinance on motor vehicle traffic control that restricts the use of hand-held mobile telephones.  The comment period for the NPRM recently closed, and the Agency plans to issue a final rule later this year.  

ENHANCED OVERSIGHT OF MOTORCOACH OPERATIONS

FMCSA launched several initiatives to enhance its oversight of motorcoach companies, the drivers they employ and the vehicles they operate.  These efforts include strict enforcement of the current safety regulations, more rigorous scrutiny of all passenger carrier applications for operating authority, implementation of the Safety Measurement System (SMS) to identify at-risk carriers for targeted enforcement as part of our new Compliance, Safety and Accountability program, or “CSA,” and improved oversight of the medical certification process for drivers.   

FMCSA Motorcoach Strike Forces and Oversight

FMCSA routinely conducts strike force activities at national, regional and local levels to enhance our overall motorcoach enforcement program. 

For instance, in October 2010 we conducted a two-day strike force at the Bands of America/Super Regional Championship at the Alamodome in San Antonio, Texas. We inspected motorcoaches from 12 different companies. The inspectors found 45 violations and placed 4 vehicles out-of-service. Although this is a small event, we conducted the strike force because more than 50 high school bands from across Texas use motorcoaches to attend the competition.  We want to be sure these types of trips end safely.

Also last year FMCSA conducted the national passenger carrier strike force from August 23 to September 3.  During that time period FMCSA, along with our State and local safety partners, conducted 5,679 passenger vehicle inspections, 324 compliance reviews, 31 new entrant safety audits, and 35 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) reviews.  We discovered over 900 driver violations that required over 200 drivers to be placed out-of-service and more than 350 drivers were cited for hours of service violations.  We also discovered over 5,600 vehicle violations and placed over 900 vehicles out-of-service.  As a result of these compliance reviews, 9 percent of the passenger carriers received safety ratings of “Conditional” and 2 percent received proposed “Unsatisfactory” safety rating.

In 2009 FMCSA conducted our national passenger carrier strike force for two weeks in May.  Again, FMCSA worked in conjunction with our State and local safety partners to conduct 8,699 passenger vehicle inspections, 548 compliance reviews, and 53 new entrant safety audits.  We discovered over 1,700 driver violations that required over 275 drivers to be placed out-of-service and more than 500 drivers were cited for hours of service violations.  We also discovered over 7,000 vehicle violations and placed over 900 vehicles out-of-service.  As a result of these compliance reviews, 9 percent of the passenger carriers received “Conditional” safety ratings, and 3 percent received a proposed “Unsatisfactory” safety rating.

In 2009, we also conducted multiple strike force events in many National Parks including Yellowstone, Glacier, Mount Rushmore, Mesa Verde, Yosemite, and Grand Teton to name a few.  During these events FMCSA and our safety partners inspected 146 motorcoaches, and placed 4 drivers and 8 vehicles out-of-service.  We are planning similar events this summer.

FMCSA has robustly expanded our enforcement activities focused on motorcoach companies by holding company officials and consultants accountable.  One example occurred in July 2010 when the FMCSA issued a Notice of Claim to Ernesto Segura Silva for a civil penalty of $78,170.  The Notice of Claim charged Mr. Segura, and the two motor carrier company names he had used, with 36 violations of 6 separate motor carrier safety requirements.  A separate Notice of Claim for $55,270 was issued to Mario A. Garcia, a consultant, for his actions in aiding and abetting Mr. Segura and his unfit motor carrier operation to evade Federal regulations, and continue transportation of passengers after a final unsatisfactory safety rating, without operating authority and in violation of FMCSA Orders to Cease. 

The Notice of Claim issued to Mr. Garcia charged him with 34 violations of Federal requirements, including making false statements and providing false or misleading information in the new entrant registration process.  This was the first time FMCSA had charged a safety consultant for the consultant's actions in aiding a carrier in violating Federal regulations and in assisting the carrier to reincarnate and apply for new authority to evade Federal regulations and avoid its safety, performance and compliance history and continue operating after being declared unfit and ordered to cease.  FMCSA entered into a Settlement Agreement with Mr. Garcia which requires him to, among other things, cease aiding and abetting motor carriers evading regulation, provide FMCSA with a current list of his consulting clients on a regular basis, and obtain training on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

FMCSA also sought an injunction in Federal District Court against Garcia and a passenger motor carrier operation he started by using Segura's motorcoach and driver after rejecting his application for operating authority.  On November 30, 2010 the Court entered an order approving a Consent Decree permanently enjoining Garcia and this passenger carrier from operating any commercial motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce and Garcia is enjoined from aiding any motor carrier in evading FMCSA regulations, operating without authority or operating in violation of an FMCSA order.

FMCSA obtained another Federal District Court order last month [Feb. 16] entering a Consent Decree against RLT Tours, an passenger carrier transporting daily commuters between Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania and New York City without necessary operating authority.  Following a compliance review, FMCSA had issued RLT Tours an unsatisfactory safety rating, revoked its operating authority and ordered it to cease operations effective November 5, 2010.  Yet RLT continued to operate.  Under last month’s favorable court order, RLT Tours and a related company were dissolved and prohibited from operating in interstate commerce.  The Court similarly barred the individual owners from operating in interstate commerce without proper operating authority, and it expressly enjoined them -- and any persons with whom they were acting in concert -- from applying for FMCSA operating authority without accurately disclosing their relationship to RLT Tours. 

One of the hurdles to effective passenger carrier oversight is the informality with which motor coaches are leased from company to company and the difficulty of determining in some situations which company is responsible for safety of the vehicle and its operation.  Unlike property carriers, under current regulations passenger carriers are not required to execute written leases specifying the party responsible for safety.  FMCSA is committed to initiating a rulemaking on this issue.

To combat the recent rash of crashes among motorcoaches in the New York and

New Jersey areas, FMCSA also joined with State and local CMV enforcement officials to conduct strike forces designed to identify and remove unsafe drivers and vehicles from service.  These efforts were very effective and I would like to share with the Committee some of the results.   

On March 17, FMCSA began an enforcement strategy with the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), the New York State Police, and the New York City Police Department (NYPD) to conduct a motorcoach strike force.  This combined effort resulted in approximately 87 inspections. The strike force deployed at multiple locations across the state.  Locations ranged from Buffalo bridge crossings with Canada to popular motor coach destinations including Turning Stone Casino in Verona near Syracuse, the southern tier of the NY State Thruway, and New York City’s Chinatown.  NYSDOT will continue its statewide effort over the next week with a heavy focus in New York City.

Governor Cuomo’s office has asked the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles to conduct an audit of all motorcoach operators to determine if drivers are properly licensed and qualified to drive.  FMCSA is supporting this effort by sharing information from our Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) data.  There are more than 2000 passenger carriers in NY State.  The audits will focus upon approximately 304 passenger carriers that operate at least one bus with seating for more than 40 passengers. 

These strike forces are tools that we have at our disposal to quickly assess the state of safety on our roads.  We thank our State and local law enforcement officials, as well as our safety stakeholders, for their efforts to support these projects to improve safety nationwide. 

I call upon all States to follow in the footsteps of Governor Cuomo.  If State licensing agencies perform a top to bottom review of the CDL holders with a passenger endorsement that are based in their State, together we will begin to root out individuals that received a CDL under false pretenses or through fraudulent practices. Only by working together can we solve this important safety issue.

In addition we must not be complacent in the enforcement of safety regulations on motorcoach companies or other CMVs.  FMCSA, the States and local agencies must sustain an aggressive approach to increase the number of inspections and reviews. The risk is too great not to take action. 

FMCSA has 3,681 motorcoach carriers registered with active operating authority.  We as an Agency increased the compliance reviews conducted on motorcoaches by 128 percent, from 457 in 2005 to 1,042 in 2010.  Inspections of motorcoaches increased 98 percent during the same period, from 12,991 in 2005 to 25,703 in 2010.  Motorcoach related fatalities have decreased from 57 in 2004 to 46 in 2009; a reduction of 19 percent.  Passenger carrier enforcement cases rose from 36 in 2008 to 44 in 2010, a 22 percent increase.  Between Fiscal Years 2007-2010, FMCSA placed 75 passenger carriers out-of-service for being unfit to operate, after receiving an unsatisfactory rating. 

As previously stated, there are 3,681 FMCSA-registered motorcoach companies. On average we conduct an on-site compliance review on a motorcoach company every 3-4 years.  This 3-4 year average reflects a more than 100 percent increase over where we were in 2005, when the average was more than 8 years between compliance reviews. 

Operating Authority Vetting Program

In August 2008, FMCSA implemented a more robust investigation of applications for passenger carrier operating authority.  This was a necessary step toward preventing the reincarnation of unsafe passenger carriers that choose to evade FMCSA sanctions rather than operate in compliance with the regulations. 

Through the vetting program, FMCSA conducts an investigation of the application information to determine whether the applicant is fit, willing, and able to comply with the safety and other applicable regulations, or if the applicant is attempting to evade enforcement actions for violations committed under another business name.   

We believe the program is effective, and I assure you that we will maintain a high level of effort in this area.  Since FMCSA started the program in 2008, the Agency has applied the vetting process to 2,666 applications for passenger carrier operating authority.   We granted operating authority to 1,995 applicants, 669 carriers failed to successfully complete the application and either withdrew their applications or simply failed to respond to inquiries from the Agency, and 2 were rejected because the Agency determined the applicant was a reincarnation of another unsafe motor carrier.  To date, 24 percent of applicants have had their applications for operating authority rejected.

The Vetting Program is one of our early success stories in raising the safety bar to enter the passenger carrier industry. 

New Entrant Safety Audit Program

One of the concerns that came to light during the development of the Motorcoach Safety Action Plan was the perception that new motorcoach operators did not have the knowledge or ability to properly maintain their vehicles.  To aid in determining the validity of this perception, FMCSA modified the new entrant safety audit to ascertain the maintenance capabilities of new motorcoach companies. Questions were added asking if the motorcoach company owns or leases a facility for the inspection, repair, and maintenance of its vehicles or if the company has an arrangement or contract for the systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance of its vehicles.

We also modified the new entrant safety audit to include a component on compliance with the ADA regulations for over-the-road bus (OTRB) companies.  We ask if the carrier has the means to provide accessible service on a 48-hour advance notice basis by its owned or leased OTRBs.  If the carrier does not have the means, then does the carrier have an arrangement with another carrier that operates accessible OTRBs to provide the service for the first carrier?

FMCSA established an internal goal to complete the new entrant safety audits for passenger carriers within 9 months, rather than the 18 months required by statute.  In FY 2010, FMCSA completed 77 percent of the passenger carrier safety audits within 9 months and 90 percent in 18 months.  For FY 2011, to date, the percentages are 77 percent and 94 percent, respectively.  On average, a safety audit is conducted on a new motorcoach company in less than 6 months.

Compliance, Safety, and Accountability (CSA)

For the passenger carriers that are currently conducting operations in interstate commerce, FMCSA’s CSA program enables the Agency to ensure that these companies have effective safety management controls in place in order to continue operating. 

CSA is a major FMCSA initiative for the comprehensive review, analysis, and restructuring of the Agency’s current safety monitoring system, as well as our compliance and enforcement programs.  CSA will provide a more effective operational model so that the Agency can have a greater impact on large truck and bus safety while optimizing the resources of FMCSA and its State partners. 

To this end, the Agency developed a new operational model, and implementation of that model is in process.  Full deployment is to be completed by the end of 2011.  The model includes four major elements:  (1) measurement; (2) intervention; (3) safety fitness determination; and (4) information technology.  The new measurement system pinpoints the specific safety problems involved, while the broader array of CSA interventions, including warning letters sent at the first indication of safety performance problems and various types of investigations for carriers with more severe safety performance problems, enables FMCSA to match the most appropriate intervention to seriousness of the carrier’s specific safety problems.    

In December 2010, FMCSA released to the public the new CSA Safety Measurement System SMS and began using the system for prioritizing carriers for enforcement interventions.  Earlier this month, the Agency began sending warning letters to motor carriers nationwide.  The warning letters are used to formally notify company executives about safety problems observed in our inspection and crash database so that appropriate corrective actions can be taken.  FMCSA will closely monitor the safety records of these carriers for the next 12 months to assure that corrective action has indeed occurred.  Failure of the carrier to address the safety performance problems may result in tougher enforcement actions, including a Federal notice of violation, a notice of claim through which the Agency assesses civil penalties, or an off-site or on-site investigation.  The investigations may also result in civil penalties for discovered violations.

FMCSA has implemented components to its CSA program which monitor the compliance and safety of motorcoach companies separately from trucking companies.  For example, unauthorized for-hire motorcoach companies that have operational activity are made a top priority for an on-site investigation.  In addition, motorcoach companies with below industry median performance in a safety evaluation area, operating more than 2 years without an on-site investigation, or operating more than 5 years since the previous on-site investigation are a priority.

Later this year, FMCSA plans on issuing an NPRM that will propose changes to our current Safety Fitness Rating Methodology for commercial bus and truck companies. Through this rulemaking proposal, FMCSA would determine a carrier’s safety fitness based on CSA data consisting of crashes, road inspection results and violation history rather than exclusively data from the standard compliance review. This proposal would enable FMCSA to assess the safety performance of a greater segment of the commercial motor carrier industry with the goal of further reducing large truck and bus crashes and fatalities.

Enhanced Oversight of the Medical Certification Process

A critical part of ensuring the safe operation of all CMVs is medical certification of drivers.  Currently, FMCSA and its State partners check regularly during compliance reviews, new entrant safety audits, and roadside inspections to ensure that drivers have a valid medical card.  When it is discovered that a driver does not have a medical card or a company is employing drivers without valid medical cards, the driver and carrier are subject to enforcement action, generally in the form of civil penalties.  In addition, if during an inspection a driver is found to be operating a passenger carrying vehicle without possessing a valid medical card, the driver is placed out-of-service.

On December 1, 2008, FMCSA published a final rule merging the medical certification and CDL issuance and renewal processes.  The rule improves the Agency’s and the States’ ability to monitor the medical certification status of interstate CDL holders.  The final rule requires CDL holders to provide a copy of their medical certificate to the State driver licensing agency in order to be granted a CDL or to maintain their existing interstate driving privileges.  If a driver fails to renew the medical certificate, or if the driver fails the physical examination, the CDL will be downgraded automatically to prohibit the operation of CMVs in interstate commerce. 

The final rule became effective on January 30, 2009.  States must implement the information technology system changes necessary to comply with the rule by January 30, 2012.  All CDL holders must comply with the requirements to submit the medical certification information to the States by January 30, 2014.

The final rule required States to make the CDL driver’s medical certification status available electronically to motor carrier safety enforcement personnel.  FMCSA and State enforcement personnel would then be able to determine during a roadside inspection whether a driver is medically qualified by reviewing the electronic record maintained by the State licensing agency.  Federal, State, and local government enforcement officials would query the Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS) or the National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System to determine whether the driver had the required medical certification – something they cannot now accomplish.

In addition to the medical certification rule, FMCSA is developing a National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners.  Later this year, FMCSA plans to issue a final rule requiring that all healthcare professionals who issue medical certificates for interstate truck and bus drivers complete training on the Federal physical qualifications regulations and pass a test to verify they understand the requirements.  Once this program is implemented, only medical certificates issued by examiners listed on the National Registry will be accepted.   Medical examiners will be required to submit to FMCSA reports providing the name and a unique numerical identifier for each person who applies for a medical certificate.  Certain other information will also be submitted to enable the Agency to monitor medical examiners’ performance and to identify potential instances of “doctor shopping” – medically unqualified drivers making multiple attempts to obtain a medical certificate.  

KNOWLEDGE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CARRIERS

The FMCSA acknowledges that many of the new motorcoach operators that enter the industry each year do not have the knowledge needed to put into place effective safety management controls for their company.  The Agency initiated a rulemaking to address this issue.

On August 29, 2010, FMCSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking requesting public comment on the methods the Agency should consider implementing to provide further assurance that a new applicant carrier is knowledgeable about the applicable safety regulations before being granted new entrant authority. The Agency announced that it was considering whether to implement a proficiency examination as part of our revised New Entrant Safety Assurance Process and sought information concerning issues that should be considered in the development and use of such an examination.

In addition, the Agency requested comments on other alternatives to a proficiency examination to complement the processes already in place to demonstrate that new entrant carriers are knowledgeable about applicable safety requirements.

The FMCSA also tasked its Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) to provide suggestions or recommendations on approaches that could be implemented to improve the existing new entrant safety assurance processes, procedures, and requirements for ensuring that new entrant motor carriers are knowledgeable about Federal motor carrier safety mandates prior to beginning operations in interstate commerce.  The MCSAC provided its letter report in September 2010 which included recommendations for mandatory testing of certain company officials responsible for ensuring compliance with the safety regulations and putting into place safeguards for ensuring that the individual taking the test would actually be responsible for implementing or maintaining the carrier’s safety management controls.  

In addition to the rulemaking, FMCSA is conducting a study to evaluate the effectiveness of some of the recommendations. The phased research is progressing on analysis of safety performance cost effectiveness for fostering a safety culture in new entrants via training and testing their knowledgeability. The initial report is a detailed analysis of changes in safety performance that resulted from a predecessor simplistic new entrant training effort.  Preliminary results of that simplistic training effort are encouraging in regard to the effectiveness. 

The Agency is currently reviewing the comments to the ANPRM and the MCSAC report in preparation for developing an NPRM to request public comment on a regulatory approach for ensuring new entrant carriers have the knowledge needed to comply with the Federal safety regulations.

CONCLUSION

FMCSA’s efforts to improve motorcoach safety could not be accomplished without the assistance of our State and local safety partners.  We are working closely with the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Governors Highway Safety Association, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and others enlisting their support for promotion of sustained traffic enforcement against those CDL operators who drive unsafely. In addition, we also rely on our partnerships with safety advocacy groups and the many safety-conscious professionals in the industry to make our highways safer.  With almost 4,000 active interstate motorcoach operations, the industry has demonstrated that we can achieve much higher levels of safety performance than we witnessed earlier this month.  This month’s crashes are tragic reminders that we have much more to do. 

To that end, I want to assure you that everyone at FMCSA is committed to three core principles:  First is to raise the safety bar to enter the motor carrier industry; second, is to maintain high safety standards to remain in the industry. And our third core principle is to remove high risk drivers and carriers from operating. Everything we do is linked to one or more of these principles.

Mr. Chairman, we at FMCSA applaud you and your colleagues on the Committee and in the Congress for your leadership in the area of motor carrier safety.  During these investigations into the recent motorcoach accidents, we have been in constant communication with many of you and your staff.  We appreciate your support and your holding us to that high standard that we know must be achieved to avoid future crashes.  As we go forward with efforts to reauthorize our highway safety program, we look forward to working with you to develop a plan that will help achieve great strides in the coming years.   

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF

VICTORIA COX,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR NEXTGEN AND
OPERATIONS PLANNING SERVICES,
AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS, ON

A REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION’S RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM,

FEBRUARY 16, 2011.

Good morning, Chairman Palazzo, Congressman Costello, and Members of the Subcommittee.  I am Victoria Cox, Senior Vice President for NextGen and Operations Planning Services in the Air Traffic Organization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  It is a pleasure to meet the new Members of the Subcommittee today and I look forward to working with all of you.  It saddens me to miss Congresswoman Giffords here, having appeared before her last year, and we at the FAA join the rest of the nation in keeping her recovery in our thoughts.

Research and development has been essential and necessary to aviation since the beginning.  Where would we be without the Wright Brothers’ studies and experiments on the dynamics of flight?  The FAA's research, engineering and development (RE&D) program carry this legacy forward as aviation continues to thrive and change.

Aviation is a vital national resource for the United States.  The aviation industry alone directly employs 1.1 million people and supports more than 11 million jobs in related industries and through spending by direct aviation employees.  Altogether, this represents 6% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  In addition to the support it provides for commerce, jobs, and economic development, we cannot forget aviation’s integral role in law enforcement, emergency response, and in the national defense and security of the homeland.  These benefits of the aviation industry require that America’s air transportation system remains the best in the world.

But being the best has a price.  To maintain leadership requires constant introduction of new technologies and procedures, innovative policies, and advanced management practices into the aviation system.  In order to do that, we need to make sustained investments in advanced research and technology development.  A robust RE&D program allows for cost-effective implementation of viable new technologies and capabilities through concept development, testing, early risk identification and mitigation. 

There’s an incomplete understanding of what the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) is and what it can do.  The concept is simple: NextGen is a set of technologies, processes, procedures and policy that together will revolutionize how people fly.  It is a radical departure from the ground-based radar of years gone by, a shift toward satellite control and navigation.  It is a game changer for the controller, the pilot, and the passenger.  With the technology and procedures of NextGen, we can help turn that around.  But we are well aware that is not the whole story.  If we want to get maximum return on the investment, if we want to support unconstrained market growth in aviation, we must take an aggressive approach to upgrading our infrastructure to maximize the benefits of NextGen.  At some point, keeping the legacy systems going becomes more costly than replacing them with new technologies.

To that end, we have developed a research portfolio that will address today’s needs while laying the foundation to address the needs of the future for NextGen.  The FAA’s research and development is geared to practical applicability.  While we are developing NextGen with an eye towards the long-term transformation of the air traffic control system, we are evolving the system in the near-to mid-term as well, as my testimony will highlight later.  FAA efforts focus on the period between now and 2018.

FAA’s research portfolio is divided into related fields.  Our core and NextGen RE&D funding includes research that supports aviation safety and regulatory processes. Other research and development activities are aimed at introducing innovative new technologies into the air transportation system that will deliver future operational improvements envisioned for NextGen. 

Our Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping (ATD&P) work is funded in the Facilities and Equipment (F&E) appropriation.  It further develops products resulting from FAA RE&D investments as well as research transitioned from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and other sources of basic and fundamental research. ATD&P activities include development of detailed mid-term operational concepts, concept validation studies, human factors analyses and requirements for individual systems based on those concepts, and validation prototypes and demonstrations.

NextGen System Development is funded in the F&E appropriation and supports the transition from RE&D to advanced technology development through activities such as concept modeling, system level requirements development, assessments of human performance and integration with technologies, and development of environmental management methodologies.  

Research and development performed by MITRE’s Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) directly supports needs of FAA research and development programs that can uniquely be provided by this Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC). 

Finally, research and development is also funded by the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).  There are two components:  first the Airport Technology Research Program addresses the research and development needs of the Office of Airports in the areas of airport pavement, rescue and firefighting, wildlife hazard mitigation, runway surface technology, and visual guidance.  The results of this research are used to update guidance material, manuals, and technical specifications that airports rely on when expending AIP funds.  Second, the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) is funded by the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).  ACRP is an industry-driven, applied research program that develops near-term, practical solutions to problems faced by airport operators.  The FAA sponsors ACRP, and the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies manages the program.  Contractors who are selected on the basis of competitive proposals conduct the research.

FAA takes seriously the need to continue to improve environmental performance in order to sustain aviation growth.  The FAA and aviation industry agree that environmental impacts will constrain NextGen if they are not effectively managed and mitigated.  Technological advances in engine, airframe, and fuels technologies offer the greatest improvements and will keep the U.S. globally competitive.  We have partnered with industry in our Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) technology program to develop new technologies to reduce aircraft noise, emissions, and fuel burn, and to advance sustainable alternative aviation fuels. 

Engine and airframe technologies will offer the greatest long term benefit but these new technologies must be coupled with efficient procedures, particularly in the near term.  Thus, we are implementing new Optimized Profile Descents (OPDs) at nine locations including Los Angeles, Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, Honolulu and Anchorage.  In addition, eight OPD projects are presently under development in the NAS including Seattle, St. Louis, Louisville, Charlotte and Memphis. Traditional approaches require a plane to follow a stair-step pattern of arrival – descending and leveling off several times before landing.  Each time a pilot has to stop descending and resume level flight, they have to throttle up the engines.  These OPDs allow planes to continually descend to the airport from high altitudes without having to level off, or step down, at interim altitudes.  This process of continuous descent results in significant fuel savings and a reduction in radio communications – especially, in complex, busy airspace around major airports. 

Sustainable alternative fuels development and deployment offer prospects for environmental improvements, energy security, and economic stability for aviation.  We’re working cooperatively with the industry through the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) to develop “drop-in” fuels.  We achieved approval of a synthetic fuel in 2009 (ASTM D7566), the first new fuel standard in decades.  We are on track to achieve a fuel standard that will allow a 50% blend of a synthetic fuel with jet fuel this year.

We do want to point out that we are not alone in these efforts.  We are committed to working smarter and more leanly, and to that end, we are partnering with others to leverage their knowledge and resources to augment ours.  We engage with industry via advisory boards and with a multitude of international organizations. The Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) facilitates partnerships across the government agencies including FAA, NASA and the Departments of Defense, Commerce and Homeland Security. The JPDO supports the future vision for NextGen by developing the long-term research plan for improvements that extend beyond the 2018 planning window that is FAA’s focus.

Through our coordination with our internal and external partners, we have been able to identify research gaps, reduce duplication of efforts, and leverage available resources.  One of our most important research partners is, of course, NASA.  That agency’s contributions to our research and development are of such vital importance that, as of January 2011, we have assigned an FAA liaison to NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) to identify research and development collaboration opportunities and ensure stronger and timely coordination between FAA and NASA.

One of the many ways we partner with NASA under the auspices of the JPDO is on a series of Research Transition Teams (RTT).  Four pilot RTTs were initiated in 2007 to ensure that research and development needed for NextGen implementation is identified, conducted, and effectively transitioned to the implementing agency.  These include:

• Integrated Arrival/Departure/Surface
• Efficient Flow into Congested Airspace
• Dynamic Airspace Configuration
• Flow-Based Trajectory Management

Both NASA and FAA collaborated through these RTTs to conduct joint research, simulation, and field trials of NextGen technologies.  Through this interaction selected algorithms have been transferred from NASA to the FAA, along with research results to inform the implementation process of the given technologies. 

We are also partnering with NASA on our NextGen Human Factors Research Coordination Plan.  Our work began in September 2010 and we anticipate that the final product will be published this month by the JPDO.  This product will describe key coordination activities recommended by Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department of Transportation’s Office of the Inspector General, namely: identification of initial focus areas for research, establishment of methods for leveraging past and current human factors research, and creation of an inventory of existing facilities for human factors research.  The coordination process leverages GAO-recommended best practices to help enhance and sustain collaboration among Federal agencies.  This is an aggressive renewed effort to formalize existing human factors research coordination process between FAA and NASA, and begins an annual coordination process between our two agencies to review planned research efforts, identify gaps, monitor and evaluate progress, and report results.

NASA also is a vital collaborator with the FAA in its Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction (PARTNER) Center of Excellence supporting development of aviation technologies and operational procedures to reduce fuel burn and environmental impacts due to noise and emissions.

On the Department of Defense side, we have an Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) Liaison to FAA for NextGen.  In 2010, the Air Force assigned a NextGen research liaison to FAA to work closely with researchers to identify opportunities to leverage relevant research, laboratory capabilities and expertise available within AFRL.  Our joint goal is to advance the air traffic management research and technology required for FAA to implement our National Airspace System (NAS) mid-term capabilities as defined in the Enterprise Architecture and the NextGen Implementation Plan (NGIP).  The ARFL Liaison partnership, in particular, has helped advance Human Factors, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and sustainable alternative fuels work.

Finally, we work closely with the JPDO to continue to define our future needs and priorities.  The JPDO works to mitigate research and development risk for 2025 by analyzing various issues, such as:

• UAS and other advanced technologies that will require careful transition and ultimately lead to NAS integration
• Trajectory Based Operations
• Potential environment constraints.

The JPDO works with FAA to coordinate development of information data sharing standards, models, and integration of advanced aviation weather forecasts into air traffic control tools.  I am pleased to report that our efforts have been paying off.  In Fiscal Year 2010, we have completed several research and development efforts in the safety arena.  In partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service, FAA has developed the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model, an operational next-generation numerical weather prediction system designed to serve both operational aviation forecasting and atmospheric research needs. FAA-funded researchers also developed the Graphical Turbulence Guidance (GTG) product which provides contours of weather turbulence potential out to 12 hours.  The current product, GTG2, operationally implemented on Aviation Digital Data Service in FY 2010, provides forecasts for clear air turbulence from 10,000 - 45,000 feet.  The Congressional Joint Economic Committee estimates that air traffic delays cost the U.S. Economy over $41 billion in 2007, of which 70% are related to adverse weather - and as the demand for air traffic grows, air traffic delays and the associated economic toll will only increase.   We have determined that 2/3rds of these weather related delays are avoidable with more accurate and better integrated weather information for decision-making, potentially reducing the number of delays by 46% and saving $19 billion annually.  The FAA, NOAA and other partners are working to realize these savings and accommodate the expected demand growth.

In partnership with the Air Transport Association’s Human Factors Committee and Alaska Airlines, we completed beta testing of new training material and procedures to improve safety in Airline Maintenance and Ramp Operations.  FAA developed Front Line Manager Best Practices Quick Reference Guide (FLM QRG) to assist air traffic front line managers in preventing errors through performance management. FLM QRG provides helpful information on topics such as communications, improving performance, training, and leadership.

In the NextGen arena, we have completed a Wake Turbulence Separation Safety Risk assessment to reclassify all B757s in the same weight class and harmonize the weight boundary between the US Heavy and Large from 255,000 to 300,000 lbs, thus harmonizing with ICAO.  This successful change was implemented April 8, 2010.  The completion of the Wake Turbulence Safety Risk assessment for the B787 Dreamliner has been submitted to the FAA Safety Management System for adoption. and we have ongoing work with the B747-8 and A380 in response to satisfying the NTSB recommendation A-94-056.  These efforts address the need to mitigate the risk for wake turbulence through the development of safe wake separation standards prior to entry into service of new aircraft and to continue this evaluation early in the service life.

We have completed Human-in-the-Loop Simulations and flight trials for the 4-Dimensional (4D) Flight Management System (FMS) Trajectory-Based Operations (TBO) and partnered with Alaska Airlines to conduct 4D FMS TBO Initial Flight Trials at Seattle.  In response to the RTCA Task Force 5 recommendations, FAA has partnered with Federal Express and Delta Airlines to field test the Collaborative Departure Queue Management surface management system at Memphis and Orlando.  We completed initial investigations, including Human-in-the Loop simulations, into application of Data Communications in the terminal domain, and conducted Staffed NextGen Tower proof-of-concept field demonstrations at Dallas Fort Worth Airport in August 2010.  Finally, in partnership with Customs and Border Protection (CBP), we conducted flight trials with CBP’s Predator UAS system at Cape Canaveral to investigate potential solutions to help with integration into the NAS.  This is the first in a series of progressive demonstrations that are planned for next year, with an expanding list of partners.  Each of these accomplishments takes us step-by-step closer to realizing the full benefits of NextGen.

In the airport environment, I am pleased to report that we have developed a new FAA Wildlife Website/Database with a cell phone application for reporting wildlife strikes.  Additionally, we have installed a pilot Runway Status Light (RWSL) system at Boston-Logan Airport aimed at investigating RWSL applicability for intersecting runways. We conducted Human-in-the-Loop simulations using Converging Runway Display Aid (CRDA) at Newark Airport.  Finally, we have recently completed installation of prototype Low Cost Ground Surveillance systems at Spokane, WA; Manchester, NH; and San Jose, CA.  These cost effective systems offer the potential to provide an added layer of safety by giving air traffic controllers basic ground surveillance for aircraft and vehicles operating on runways and adjacent taxiways, where current radar-based ground surveillance is not available.

As our recent accomplishments illustrate, our approach to research and development with an eye toward maintaining our leadership in aviation while leveraging our partnerships to maximum effect is bearing fruit.  As the aviation industry continues to evolve and change, it is vitally important that our country leads the world in this sector.  I look forward to working with this Congress to ensure that we do.

This concludes my prepared remarks.  Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you.  I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Statement of

John R. Baxter
Associate Administrator for Federal Lands
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation

Hearing on Tribal Transportation: Paving the Way for Jobs,
Infrastructure and Safety in Native Communities

Before the

Committee on Indian Affairs
United States Senate

September 15, 2011

Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding transportation issues facing Native American communities and the programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that provide support to Tribes for addressing these issues.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) recognizes that transportation needs for Tribes are often different than what we see needed elsewhere in the U.S. transportation network.  In much of this country, we take for granted that roads and highways will be there for children to reach their schools, for emergency vehicles to reach those in need of medical care, and for members of the community to get to work.  But, in Indian Country, we cannot always make that assumption.  Moreover, tribal communities need good roads to support economic development.

Secretary LaHood shares President Obama’s commitment to addressing tribal issues and concerns.  Last year, meeting with the National Congress of American Indians, the Secretary emphasized the DOT's commitment to improving existing tribal transportation programs by seeking tribal input on important regulations, providing timely technical assistance, and ensuring that Tribes are given ample opportunities to compete for grants.  The Department also has implemented its Tribal Consultation Plan, a detailed plan of action the agency will take when developing, changing, or implementing policies, programs, or services with tribal implications.

FHWA has a long history of supporting tribal governments’ rights to self-determination and working directly with Tribes in a government-to-government relationship.  FHWA’s top leadership continues to meet directly with tribal government elected officials and transportation staff, and is committed to delivering a transportation program that works for all Tribes whether the Tribe has a large or small population. 

FHWA has sought to improve tribal transportation by working directly with tribal governments to improve Tribes’ technical capacity, to improve safety on reservations and native communities, and to foster partnerships between tribal governments, local governments, Federal agencies, and State DOTs.  

The Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program, administered by FHWA in partnership with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), is critical to supporting tribal transportation needs.  In many cases, it is the only source of revenue for transportation improvements.  In working through FHWA’s partnership with the Tribes and the BIA, the IRR program seeks to balance transportation mobility and safety goals with the environmental and cultural values of tribal lands.  FHWA also works with the Federal Transit Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in coordinating transportation programs that focus on planning, safety, and construction of roads and transit services within Indian country.

OVERVIEW

The IRR system of roads provides access to and within Indian reservations, Indian trust land, restricted Indian land, eligible Indian communities, and Alaska Native villages.  The IRR system consists of more than 140,000 miles of roads that link housing, schools, emergency services, and places of employment, and facilitate tourism and resource use.  Almost 11 billion vehicle miles are traveled annually on the IRR system, even though it is among the most rudimentary of any transportation network in the United States.  Just over 60 percent of the system is unpaved.  If only BIA and tribal roads of the IRR system are considered, this number increases to approximately 80 percent.  Within the system, there are more than 8,000 bridges and approximately 27 percent of these bridges are classified as deficient.  These conditions make it very difficult for residents of tribal communities to travel to employment centers, hospitals, schools, and stores—the most basic needs for a livable community.

The poor road quality on tribal lands also affects safety.  For the past two years, traffic deaths on U.S. roads have reached record lows.  However, despite the gains we have made on other systems, the annual fatality rate on Indian reservation roads continues to be more than twice the national average.  Safety continues to be the Department’s top priority, and FHWA is working closely with Tribes, the BIA, NHTSA, and others to address this disproportionate level of fatalities on tribal roads. 

The IRR program is the largest Federal Lands Highway (FLH) program and is unique due to the relationship with Federally-recognized Indian Tribal Governments under the program.  The IRR program serves 565 Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native villages in 32 States.  FHWA co-administers the IRR program with the BIA under an agreement originating in 1948 and a Stewardship Plan from July 1996.

IRR program funding has grown significantly under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:  A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), from a program size of $275 million annually under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21) to $450 million annually today.  This equates to a total of $2.76 billion over the life of SAFETEA-LU, including the extensions through the end of this fiscal year.  These funds have been distributed according to a tribal shares formula, which was developed through a negotiated rulemaking with tribal governments.  SAFETEA-LU also increased the eligible uses of IRR program funds by allowing a Tribe to use up to 25 percent of its share of funds for road and bridge maintenance activities.  This change allowed Tribes to supplement the funding they receive annually from the Department of the Interior (DOI) for maintenance activities.  It also allowed the Tribes to address critical safety, snow removal, and pavement preservation issues.  The increased funding and programmatic changes provided in SAFETEA-LU for the IRR program, along with an additional $310 million provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of  2009 (Recovery Act), discussed below, have provided tools and resources to substantially improve tribal transportation. 

SAFETY PROGRAMS

Safety remains a significant transportation issue in Indian Country.  Native Americans are overrepresented in several traffic fatality categories—including individuals under the age of 35, unbelted drivers, and individuals driving under the influence of alcohol.  Eleven safety summits, including ten State-based and one national summit held in the past two years have focused on the subject, bringing the many safety partners together to discuss the safety issues affecting them.  Two additional State-based summits, as well as an updated national tribal safety summit are planned for the near future.  FHWA and NHTSA will continue these summits to promote safety strategies across the four E's of safety—engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency medical services. 

Highway Safety Improvement Program

SAFETEA-LU established the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) with the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads through the implementation of infrastructure-related highway safety improvements.  HSIP funding has been utilized for tribal lands projects across the country. 

In Montana, for example, two HSIP construction projects totaling $1.88 million provided improvements such as the installation of Variable Message Signs on US 2 on the Blackfeet Reservation and the addition of a left-turn bay on US 93 on the Flathead Reservation.

A $107,650 HSIP project in North Carolina along US 74 from the Haywood County line to NC 28 (North), in Eastern Band of Cherokee Nation, funded the installation of milled rumble strips on the median and outside shoulders.

In North Dakota, two HSIP projects totaling $300,000 provided improvements along State highways within reservation boundaries of Standing Rock Reservation and Fort Berthold Reservation.  Such improvements included the installation of shoulder and centerline rumble strips along State Highways 23 and 24.

In Wisconsin, a $316,000 HSIP project was undertaken by the Wisconsin DOT along with the Forest County Potawatomi Tribe to improve a tribal owned intersection at Everybody's Road and USH 8 in Forest County.  The intersection project was combined with $900,000 BIA funds and $74,000 tribal funds to construct a newly relocated intersection and frontage road (Everybody's Road) that leads to the tribal headquarters offices and Tribal Community Center. 

Safe Routes to School

The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program is a Federally-funded but State-managed and administered grant program established by section 1404 of SAFETEA-LU.  Under this program, each State has received at least $1 million each fiscal year to fund planning, design, and construction of infrastructure-related projects to improve the ability of students to walk and bicycle to school.  A portion of each State’s SRTS funding must also be used for non-infrastructure-related activities to encourage walking and bicycling to school.  Federally-recognized Tribes are eligible sub-recipients of this State-administered program.  

Several States are working closely with Tribes to promote the SRTS program.  For example, in Washington State, DOT provided SRTS funds to the Suquamish Tribe to install sidewalks, bike lanes and signs and to conduct education and enforcement activities to teach children pedestrian safety skills.  Similarly, in Arizona, the Yavapai-Apache Nation utilized SRTS funds to add signs and roadway striping throughout the community surrounding a Montessori Children’s House school.  In Montana, SRTS funds were utilized in the City of Arlee for an elementary school traffic education program and construction of a pathway.  The Santee Sioux Nation Indian Reservation used SRTS funds in Nebraska to build a path for children that connected a local school with a residential community and increased pedestrian visibility.  In Oregon, Warm Springs Elementary School on the Warm Springs Reservation, received a $1000 mini-grant in Safe Routes to School Clearinghouse Funds to reduce speeding and improve yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks.  These funds will be used for a media campaign and to hire a crossing guard trainer for crossing guard volunteers. 

Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant Funds

NHTSA provides safety grant funds to the Secretary of the Interior to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic loss due to motor vehicle related crashes on tribal land.  The BIA administers the funds, known as the Section 402 State and Community Highway Safety Grant Funds.  NHTSA provides technical assistance to Tribes through partnership with the BIA.

SAFETEA-LU FUNDING FOR TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION

Although the IRR program is the principal funding source for tribal roads, these roads are eligible to receive funding under other SAFETEA-LU programs as well.

Indian Reservation Roads Bridge Program (IRRBP)

The Indian Reservation Roads Bridge Program (IRRBP) was established under TEA-21 and funded using $13 million of the primary IRR Program.  The program’s purpose was to provide funding for reconstruction or rehabilitation of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete IRR bridges.  SAFETEA-LU amended the IRRBP by establishing it as an independently funded program, authorized at $14 million per year, and allowing design activities to be funded.  FHWA worked with the Indian Reservation Roads Program Coordinating Committee to implement these legislative changes.  Since its inception in TEA-21, the IRRBP has provided more than $175 million in funding to over 300 bridge projects in Indian Country.

National Scenic Byways Program

Indian Tribes have participated in the National Scenic Byways Program since its inception under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA).  SAFETEA-LU authorized the Secretary of Transportation to make grants from this program directly to Indian Tribes and to allow Tribes to nominate Indian roads directly to FHWA (without going through a State department of transportation) for possible designation as a National Scenic Byway or an All-American Road.

FHWA has participated in tribal transportation conferences to inform Tribes of these changes to the National Scenic Byways Program.  FHWA also worked with the America’s Byways Resource Center in Duluth, Minnesota to establish a tribal liaison position within the Resource Center to provide technical assistance to Indian Tribes for establishing tribal scenic byways programs and designating roads as Indian Tribe scenic byways. 

In addition, FHWA has modified its grant application procedures so that Indian Tribes may submit grant applications directly to FHWA.  In fiscal year 2011, Tribes submitted nine applications directly to FHWA and two applications through the State departments of transportation, requesting a total of $3.13 million.  FHWA selected five of the projects, providing a total of $2,104,796 in funding. 

Public Lands Discretionary Program

The Public Lands Highway Discretionary program is another source of funding available to Tribes for transportation needs.  The program provides funding to any project eligible under title 23, United States Code, that is within, adjacent to, or provides access to tribal or Federal public lands.  Over the life of SAFETEA-LU, including the extensions through the end of this fiscal year, nearly $570 million was made available through this program.  Of the $570 million, $72 million was provided for 78 tribal related transportation projects.  This year alone, 16 tribal projects totaling more than $20 million will receive funding through this program.   

FHWA IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETEA-LU REQUIREMENTS FOR TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION

In addition to increased funding, SAFETEA-LU brought about many changes in how the IRR program is administered and to the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in transportation delivery to tribal communities.  Prior to SAFETEA-LU, FHWA provided stewardship and oversight to the IRR program from a national perspective, and the BIA worked with the Tribes by delivering the funds and providing technical assistance.  With the passage of SAFETEA-LU, Tribes now have the option to enter into IRR Program Funding Agreements and work directly with FHWA for their IRR Program share as long as the Tribes meet financial audit and management capacity requirements.  The number of Tribes electing this option has grown from three the first year to more than 92 Tribes today.

In response to this increase in the number of Tribes, and increased stewardship and oversight responsibilities, FHWA's FLH Office, which has direct responsibility for administering the IRR program, has increased staffing and worked closely with the Tribes and the BIA to develop uniform program guidance.  In addition to carrying out numerous face-to-face meetings with each Tribe and conducting outreach and training through webinars, regional conferences, and organized classes, FLH developed a new program manual for all Tribes, States, counties, and Federal agencies that communicates program expectations, roles and responsibilities, and best practices. 

National Indian Reservation Road Inventory

SAFETEA-LU directed FHWA to complete a comprehensive national inventory of IRR eligible transportation facilities and submit a Report to Congress.  The purpose of the inventory study was to ensure that the data in the existing inventory is accurate, and to help streamline the procedures that Tribes utilize for updating their inventory.  The inventory is the most significant factor used to calculate the tribal shares of IRR program funding; thus, it is critical that data in the inventory be accurate.  

FHWA completed and delivered the required Report to Congress in 2008.  The Report outlined the Agency's assessment of the inventory process, including its accuracy and consistency of application.  The Report included the identification of more than 100,000 miles of road as well as recommendations for improvement and additional study areas.  Since issuance of the Report, the inventory has grown to more than 140,000 miles of road.  As a result of the Report and issues that have arisen from the Question 10 series of consultations, FHWA plans to work with a consultant to review more than 75 percent of the inventory data.  This work will clarify programmatic definitions of the inventory entries and correct critical data errors and omissions that exist within the current inventory in order to ensure an accurate data system.  Ultimately, the inventory will reflect the needs of tribal road transportation and serve as an important tool to help make the program fair and equitable for all Tribes.   

OUTREACH AND CAPACITY BUILDING

Road Safety Audits and Safety Trainings

Strategies such as Road Safety Audits (RSAs) and community-based enforcement are proving to be effective tools for reducing fatalities on tribal lands.  The FHWA Office of Safety sponsors training on Road Safety Fundamentals and RSAs, and works with State and local jurisdictions and tribal governments to integrate RSAs into the project development process for new and existing roads and intersections. 

RSAs examine the safety performance of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary team.  They estimate and report on potential road safety issues and identify opportunities for improvements in safety for all road users.  RSAs enable localities and Indian Tribes with little or no safety data to get an expert assessment on how to improve the safety of their roads. 

RSAs were conducted for the following tribal entities—Santa Clara Pueblo and Jemez Springs Pueblo, New Mexico; Standing Rock Sioux, North Dakota; the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, North Carolina; the Navajo Nation, Utah; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Wisconsin; Smith River Rancheria, California; Native Villages of Minto and Manley Hot Springs Village, and on Prince of Wales Island in Alaska; and six additional Tribes in Arizona.  These RSAs were carried out in cooperation with State DOTs. 

Tribal Technical Assistance Program

Tribes report that education and training remain significant challenges.  Many Tribes do not have a sustainable level of transportation expertise, given their size and resources.  The FHWA supports a tribal transportation assistance program with seven centers serving Indian Country.  These Tribal Technical Assistance Program (TTAP) centers provide a variety of training and professional development programs as well as technical publications and training materials related to transportation planning, safety, the environment, infrastructure design, construction and management, and other issues.  The centers are a key resource for basic services and to help many Tribes become self-sufficient as sovereign nations in transportation delivery.  The purpose of our seven TTAP centers is to foster a safe, efficient, and environmentally sound surface transportation system by improving the skills and increasing the knowledge of local transportation professionals. 

The TTAP centers provide access to information, training, and program management enhancements that may not have otherwise been accessible to Tribes.  In 2010, the TTAP Centers provided 299 training courses to over 7000 participants. 

Through the TTAPs, FHWA also continues to provide technical assistance and training to Tribes on conducting their own RSAs.  For example, FHWA has provided funding and support to the Northern Plains TTAP to sponsor a Road Safety Audit Outreach Coordinator, who has provided training and RSAs for the Spirit Lake Nation, the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, and others.

While FHWA has remained focused on implementing SAFETEA-LU programs, the Agency has also been recently hard at work ensuring that Tribes use the much needed supplemental resources provided by the Recovery Act.  

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

In addition to SAFETEA-LU funding, the Recovery Act has supplemented funding for tribal communities by providing an additional $310 million for the IRR program.  Since the Recovery Act was signed into law, FHWA and BIA have worked diligently to ensure that the funds for these projects are distributed quickly, wisely, and with unprecedented transparency and accountability.  The Federally-recognized Tribes were eligible to receive Recovery Act funding based on the IRR formula, which takes into account the highway projects’ estimated construction cost, volume of traffic along the route, and the Tribe’s current population.  Much of the IRR portion of the Recovery Act has been dedicated to improving roads that provide critical links between tribal residences and vital community services such as schools and health care facilities. 

FHWA, along with BIA and with input from Tribes, developed a process that described the requirements for Tribes to receive and obligate their share of Recovery Act funding by focusing on obligating the majority of the $310 million before the end of fiscal year 2010.  FHWA and BIA also developed guidance to ensure a fair and transparent process to redistribute funds in cases where funds would not otherwise be obligated.  The redistribution of more than $22.5 million to approximately 25 Tribes nationwide helped ensure the efficient and effective use of Recovery Act funds.  To date, the more than 518 ARRA funded projects are on average 80 percent complete, and according to documentation provided by the Tribes, these projects have generated more than 8500 jobs.

An example includes the Blackfeet Indian Tribe in Montana that awarded a project for $916,068 to improve a 14-mile segment of road known as the Starr School Road.  This completed project is now providing a safer facility for school buses and other school traffic through sign replacement, new right of way fences, and new roadway striping.  The drainage and pavement improvements made will extend the life of the facility.  

Another example is the Ramah Navajo Chapter in New Mexico that used its Recovery Act funding along with its allocated IRR funding to construct a $2.2 million project to provide an all weather surfaced road to a new housing development.  These residents had previously been required to access their homes via a two-track mud road which became impassible in inclement weather.

In the Native Village of Tuntutuliak in Alaska, the Tribe combined Recovery Act funding with IRR Program funds and funding from the Denali Commission to reconstruct a 30-year-old board road.  This $846,000 project now allows villagers to move within the village without having to trudge through the tundra.  The BIA reports that this project was completed using all tribal employment.

For the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant award program, Congress dedicated $1.5 billion under TIGER I and $600 million under TIGER II for DOT to provide direct grants to State, local, and tribal governments, to fund surface transportation projects that have a significant impact on the Nation, a region or a metropolitan area.  DOT was able to fund 51 innovative capital projects under TIGER I, and an additional 42 capital projects under TIGER II.  TIGER II also featured a planning grant category, and DOT was able to fund 33 planning grant projects.  Both TIGER programs involved a highly competitive process and received tremendous applicant interest.  Tribal projects were selected under both TIGER I and TIGER II.

The Navajo Nation received a $31 million TIGER I grant to improve US 491, the primary north-south highway that connects the Tribe to other parts of New Mexico, Colorado, and the Four Corners area, by constructing two new lanes and making safety improvements.  The project is being administered by the New Mexico DOT and will improve safety and transportation efficiency.  It will also create potential economic development opportunities for the Navajo Nation.

TIGER I funds were also used to reconstruct a portion of US 18 between Oglala and Pine Ridge on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota.  This $10 million project upgraded 15.6 miles of a two lane highway that had no shoulders and deteriorating pavement.  These improvements will significantly improve the overall safety of this section of road which has experienced an accident rate more than 2.5 times the South Dakota average. 

The Pueblo of Laguna received a $1,470,000 TIGER II planning grant to plan and design approximately 40 miles of trails on the reservation to connect six distinct communities with a focus on their traditional village cores.  Creating links between five villages supports the collaborative efforts of the communities on the reservation and provides inexpensive transportation choices in this rural region of need. 

On July 6, 2011, Secretary LaHood announced the availability of $527 million in funding for a third round of the TIGER grant program.  This discretionary funding will provide an additional opportunity for Tribes to compete for capital improvement funds as direct recipients.  In recognition of the importance of this program to the Tribes, DOT will hold a webinar tomorrow to provide outreach and education to the Tribes on the application process.  Such outreach will continue through the application process in order to ensure quality applications are received for consideration.

CONCLUSION

Transportation infrastructure is a critical tool for Tribes to improve the quality of life in their communities by providing safe access to jobs, hospitals, and schools.  The challenges are to maintain and improve transportation systems serving Indian lands and Alaska Native villages in order to provide safe and efficient transportation, while at the same time protecting environmentally sensitive lands and cultural resources.  The Department is committed to improving transportation access to and through tribal lands through stewardship of the Federal Lands and Federal-aid programs.  Thank you again for this opportunity to testify.  I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE J. RANDOLPH BABBITT,
ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ON

LEVERAGING PUBLIC, PRIVATE, AND ACADEMIC RESOURCES,

NOVEMBER 7, 2011.

Chairman Mica, Congressman Petri, Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to highlight the capabilities of the Florida NextGen Test Bed and to discuss the benefits of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). This facility represents an exciting expansion of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) NextGen Test Bed environments, and I am pleased to be able to join you here in Florida.  The Administration is prioritizing NextGen development and implementation, and the recent renovations at the Florida Test Bed are just one of many recent NextGen-related initiatives and milestones. 

In September, the President requested $1B in the American Jobs Act for NextGen to support applied research, advanced development and implementation of solutions for NextGen technologies, applications and procedures. This additional investment in NextGen underscores the Administration’s commitment to the future of our aviation system. More recently, in mid-October, the President officially welcomed a NextGen project – for NextGen procedures in the Houston metroplex - as part of his High Priority Infrastructure projects for expedited regulatory review.  That same day, the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness delivered an interim report that included a recommendation to accelerate NextGen performance-based navigation procedures.

This focus and prioritization, when coupled with advances in technology and research capabilities provided by facilities like this one at the Daytona Beach Airport, are the key to hastening the realization of all that NextGen has to offer.

The FAA’s three NextGen Test Beds provide real-world testing and demonstration environments to facilitate research and development. The Test Beds facilitate integration of individual flight information in order to create a simulated NAS environment and to enable end-to-end demonstrations and evaluations. The FAA’s NextGen Test Bed environment is comprised of the William J. Hughes Technical Center near Atlantic City, New Jersey; this facility, the Florida NextGen Test Bed at Daytona Beach International Airport; and the field laboratory at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)/FAA North Texas facility at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. These environments provide the FAA with a broad range of resources for the development of NextGen concepts and technologies.

Today, we are marking the completion of renovations and enhancements to the Florida NextGen Test Bed which will ensure that the facility is equipped to handle the tests and demonstrations of today, and prepared to accommodate the ideas and innovations of tomorrow. Currently, the facility houses more than a dozen systems, and what you see in place today is just the beginning. The Florida Test Bed will be continually modified over the coming months and years as new demonstrations and technology evaluations are completed and additional air navigation platforms and programs are imagined and engineered.

This is a facility that will provide both government and industry the ability to examine proposed systems for NextGen operational improvements in an environment that permits integration with the full range of NextGen systems and allows evaluation of impacts to operations.  We also expect that the Florida Test Bed will act as an open evaluation platform to analyze the feasibility of new technologies and that this facility will be the birthplace of industry-identified and industry-driven concepts to further the progression and increase the benefits of NextGen. We look forward to the great new technologies that the Test Bed’s capacity for innovation, early prototype testing, and demonstrations, coupled with access to the resources at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, are sure to yield.

Generally, it is anticipated that technology and procedures demonstrated at the Florida Test Bed will provide insight into the feasibility, potential benefits, and potential costs that then inform whether the concepts should be further pursued for possible implementation.  If pursued, the acquisition process would then ensure that appropriate requirements and cost-benefit analyses are developed to find the best solution for integration into the National Airspace System (NAS). This reduces cost, schedule impact, and risk before embarking on a program, and may help shape the best path ahead.

Since 2008, the FAA has awarded $22 million toward NextGen-related research and development activities under our Other Transaction Agreement with Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. This agreement enables the FAA to leverage the experience and expertise of the Florida Test Bed’s seventeen industry partners and has resulted in NextGen solutions that are the product of industry collaboration and which have been proven successful enough to move toward implementation.  During an Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) demonstration we used NextGen Voice System technologies to show how UAS pilots and controllers could improve communication performance during long distance operations.  Results from the testing enabled us to include requirements for this capability as part of our initial contractual market survey.  Demonstrations aimed at improving integration of weather with our automation tools, were translated into technical requirements that are part of our NextGen Weather Processor (NWP) and NextGen Network Enabled Weather (NNEW) programs.  Finally, a set of progressive, multi-domain demonstrations focused on defining Flight Data Objects has provided tremendous insight on the type of flight data information that will be needed to support Trajectory Based Operations across multiple automation platforms.

Altogether, about twenty activities have been performed that span the terminal, enroute oceanic, and human factors arenas, with over fifty demonstrations of those activities conducted for various industry, government, and academia stakeholders. These activities have also involved collaboration with other United States Government agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Air Force, and Customs and Boarder Protection, as well as our international counterparts such as Airservices Australia.

In the coming years, we expect to see even more exciting developments here in Daytona Beach as we implement planned activities which will provide live NAS data to support demonstrations and will enable information sharing with other Test Bed sites and remote NextGen partners. We look forward to these and other changes as the Florida Test Bed continues to evolve.

Although we are all pleased to be here in Florida to cut the ribbon on this newly-renovated building and to witness demonstrations of the cutting-edge systems that are up and running in the Test Bed environment, this event should be more than just a celebration of what we have accomplished.  Today, we are calling on our industry partners to take advantage of the promise of the public-private partnership represented by facility.

As we look to the future of this place, we also look forward to the evolution of our air transportation system and must take the opportunity to remember the long-term benefits we are working towards. NextGen is a comprehensive overhaul of the NAS that will make air travel more convenient and dependable, while improving safety and efficiency. In a continuous roll-out of improvements and upgrades, the FAA is building the capability to guide and track air traffic more precisely and efficiently to save fuel and reduce noise and pollution. NextGen is a better way of doing business – for the FAA, the airlines, the airports, and the traveling public. It’s better for our environment, better for efficiency and flexibility, better for safety, and better for the economy.

In 2009, civil aviation contributed $1.3 trillion annually to the national economy and constituted 5.2 percent of the gross domestic product, according to FAA’s most recent report on the economic impact of civil aviation. It generated more than 10 million jobs, with earnings of $397 billion. NextGen is vital to protecting those contributions. The current system simply cannot accommodate anticipated growth in the aviation industry. Congestion continues to increase at many of our nation’s busiest hub airports, a problem that will only be exacerbated now that traffic levels are starting to rebound from the impact of the economic recession.

Between 2007 and 2011, approximately $2.8 billion has been appropriated for NextGen. The FAA estimates the development of NextGen will require between $15 and $22 billion from 2012 to 2025. These figures represent important investments with substantial returns. Our latest estimates show that by 2018, NextGen air traffic management improvements will reduce total delays, in flight and on the ground, by approximately 35 percent, compared with what would happen if we maintained our current system. This delay reduction will provide $23 billion in cumulative benefits through 2018 to aircraft operators, the traveling public, and the FAA. Additionally, we will save about 1.4 billion gallons of aviation fuel during this period, cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 14 million tons.

To fully understand the impacts of our ongoing efforts, it is important to highlight some examples of where NextGen is already improving safety and adding real dollars to the bottom line:

• Using Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), a GPS-based technology, aircraft are able to fly more safely and efficiently in previously challenging areas. ADS-B equipped helicopters flying over the Gulf of Mexico are benefiting from radar-like air traffic services for the first time. ADS-B radio stations deployed along the shoreline and on oil platforms blanket the area with air traffic surveillance, increasing the safety of operations. This same surveillance improves efficiency in the Gulf through more direct routing of ADS-B equipped helicopters, reducing both their operating cost and environmental impact. In Colorado, new surveillance technologies are enabling controllers to track aircraft flying through challenging mountainous terrain. Currently, over half of ADS-B ground infrastructure has been deployed.
• Southwest Airlines started using GPS-based Required Navigation Performance (RNP) approaches at a dozen airports this year. The airline says that it could save $25 for each mile they save by using a shorter route.
• Alaska Airlines has been a leader in using RNP approach procedures at Juneau International Airport. They can fly precisely through mountainous terrain in low visibility conditions thanks to the higher navigational accuracy of GPS. The airline estimates it would have cancelled 729 flights last year into Juneau alone due to bad weather if it were not for the GPS-based RNP approaches.
• In Atlanta, Delta Airlines reports saving 60 gallons of fuel per flight by using the more efficient descent procedures we have designed under NextGen. Aircraft descend continually to the runway with engines idle, as opposed to descending in a stair-step fashion, using the engines and burning fuel to power up at each level-off point.
• We conducted Initial Tailored Arrival (ITA) flight demonstrations at San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Miami and have now progressed to operational capability in all three locations. ITAs are pre-negotiated arrival paths through airspace of multiple air traffic control facilities; they limit vectoring and minimize the time the aircraft spends maintaining level flight during its decent. ITAs differ from other types of Optimized Profile Descents (OPDs) in that they are assigned by controllers to specific approaches and tailored to the characteristics of a limited number of FANS-equipped aircraft types – 747s, 777s, A330s, A340s and A380s. We estimate that the 747s saved an average of 176 gallons of fuel per arrival in ITAs and 78 gallons per flight in partial ITAs, compared with conventional approaches. For 777s, the corresponding savings were 99 gallons in full ITAs and 43 gallons in partial ITAs.

We anticipate seeing additional benefits in the near term. The “Greener Skies over Seattle” initiative should save literally millions of gallons of fuel annually, cut noise, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. The FAA estimates that airlines using RNP procedures at Seattle Tacoma International Airport will save several millions of dollars per year at today’s fuel prices. And that number is only going to get larger as more airlines equip. With the “Greener Skies over Seattle” initiative, aircraft will emit less carbon dioxide – about 22,000 metric tons less per year. That’s like taking more than 4,000 cars off the streets of the Seattle region.

These are just a few of the benefits that we are seeing already from our investments. However, we cannot afford to be short-sighted. A true transformation in the way we deliver air traffic services takes planning and time, and the long-term benefits offered by this new way of doing business – safety, efficiency, access, decreased environmental impact  – must always be at the forefront.

NextGen operation capabilities will make the NAS safer. ADS-B improvements in situational awareness, on the ground and in aircraft, will increase controllers’ and pilots’ individual and combined ability to avoid potential danger. Among other benefits, this could provide valuable time savings in search and rescue efforts. Appropriately equipped aircraft will be able to receive information displayed directly to the flight deck about nearby traffic weather, and flight-restricted areas.

More precise tracking and information-sharing will improve the situational awareness of pilots, enabling them to plan and carry out safe operations in ways they cannot do today. Air traffic controllers will become more effective guardians of safety through automation and simplification of their most routine tasks, coupled with better awareness of conditions in the airspace they control. Additionally, NextGen will facilitate the implementation of Safety Management System processes for the air traffic controllers’ use.

Advances in tracking and managing operations on airport surfaces will make runway incursions less likely. Fusing new surface radar coverage now in use at 35 airports with ADS-B surveillance of aircraft and ground vehicles will increase situational awareness, particularly when linked with runway status lights. Collaborative decision making will increase everyone’s understanding of what others are doing.

Starting with pre-takeoff advisories, departure instructions, and reroutes for pilots, we will use data messaging increasingly in favor of voice communications between pilots and controllers, reducing opportunities for error or misunderstanding. Voice channels will be preserved for the most critical information exchanges.

As with safety, our work to enhance aviation’s influence on the environment also benefits – and is a beneficiary of – NextGen. The operational improvements that reduce noise, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse-gas emissions from aircraft are the tip of the FAA’s environmental iceberg. Equally important are the other components of the agency’s environmental approach – aircraft and engine technology advances, sustainable fuels, policy initiatives and advances in science and modeling.

Environmental benefits of operational improvements are simple and direct. When we improve efficiency in the NAS,  operators almost always save time and fuel. Burning less fuel produces less carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions. Some of our NextGen improvements, notably approaches in which aircraft spend less time maintaining level flight and thus can operate with engines at idle, reduce ground noise too. But operational benefits go only so far; their net system-wide effect can be offset by growth of the aviation system.

To accommodate system growth, we are supporting development of aircraft, engine, and fuel technology. In 2009, we established the Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise program to bring promising new airframe and engine technologies to maturity, ready to be applied to commercial designs, within five to eight years. Similarly, we are part of a government-industry initiative, the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative, to develop sustainable low-emission alternative fuels and bring them to market.

We have developed and are using the NextGen Environmental Management System (EMS) to integrate environmental protection objectives into NextGen planning and operations. The EMS provides a structured approach for managing our responsibilities to improve environmental performance and stewardship. We also are analyzing the effect on aviation environmental policy and standards, and of market-based measures, including cap-and-trade proposals.

Additionally, many airports will benefit from substantial improvements in efficiency, access, surveillance, environmental benefits, and safety. Surveillance, situational awareness, and safety will improve at airports with air traffic control radar services as we deploy ADS-B ground stations across the NAS and update our automation systems, and as operators equip their aircraft for it. The FAA also plans to publish Wide Area Augmentation System Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) approach procedures for all suitable runway ends by 2016.

We are making important progress on a number of efforts to show how better situational awareness and pacing on the ground will give operations and the traveling public more reliability and save them time, while also managing environmental impacts. We can cut fuel consumption and emissions by reducing the time and number of aircraft idling on taxiways waiting for takeoff, or for open gates slots upon arrival. Also, we can reduce equipment wear – stop-and-go accelerations are hard on engines and other parts, and they also increase the emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

A major success in 2010 was the minimal disruption that occurred during a four-month runway resurfacing and widening project in one of the nation’s busiest airspaces. The longest runway at New York John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) had to be expanded to accommodate new, larger aircraft. The project also included taxiway improvements and construction of holding pads. To minimize disruption during construction, JFK’s operators turned to a collaborative effort using departure queue metering, in which each departing aircraft from JFK’s many airlines was allocated a precise departure slot and waited for it at the gate rather than congesting taxiways. The procedure limited delays so well, it was extended after the runway work was completed.

Surface initiatives like these make important contributions across the board – they improve situational awareness and safety, they reduce fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions and they reduce tarmac delays – in addition to making a real difference for aircraft operators and passengers.

The benefit for aircraft operators in the NAS will come from two major categories of improvements – efficiency and capacity, and access. Much of the time, efficiency and capacity go together. When we reduce the distance needed for the safe separation of aircraft, reduce delays from weather and other disruptions, and increase flight-path and procedures options for controllers as they maintain the flow of traffic, we improve capacity as well.

Access issues center on runways at major airports, affecting mainly airlines, and airports and airspace that lack radar coverage, a problem for general aviation. NextGen will improve efficiency in operations that involve closely spaced parallel runways and converging and intersecting runways. Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) are improving efficiency and capacity in departures and approaches. For general aviation, ADS-B will enable controllers to track properly equipped aircraft in non-radar areas covered by ADS-B ground stations. General aviation operators equipped for ADS-B In will receive traffic and weather information directly in the flight deck, providing them with greater situational awareness. Wide Area Augmentation System LPV approach procedures will give properly equipped aircraft Instrument Landing System (ILS)-like capability at non-ILS airports. Through our new NAV-Lean process, we are working to streamline the development and implementation of new instrument procedures to ensure that users can benefit from them as quickly as possible. We plan to accelerate design and implementation of Performance Based Navigation procedures and optimized descents to achieve their benefits sooner rather than later.

Just last month, the FAA, in collaboration with airlines in Chicago, used an RNP approach to Midway, de-coupling Midway operations from O’Hare. By doing so, O’Hare was able to maintain operations at 92 airplanes an hour, with no additional delays, while landing airplanes at Midway.  Had the procedure not been deployed, the ground delay program would have limited O’Hare to 68 airplanes per hour. 

Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM) is a systematic, integrated and expedited approach to implementing Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures and associated airspace changes.  This program was developed in direct response to RTCA Task Force 5 recommendations on the quality, timeliness, and scope of metroplex solutions. OAPM focuses on a geographic area, rather than a single airport. It considers multiple airports and the airspace surrounding a metropolitan area, including all types of operations (air carrier, general aviation, military, etc.), a well as connectivity with other metroplexes.

The OAPM process uses two types of collaborative teams including FAA and industry partners. Study Teams recommend conceptual airspace and procedure solutions, and then Design and Implementation (D&I) Teams design, refine, review, and implement those recommendations within a near-term three-year timeframe. To date, 21 Metroplex sites have been identified and prioritized with input from FAA and industry. Study Teams have completed their activities in Washington, DC,  North Texas, Charlotte, Northern California and Houston.  Study Teams are nearing completion in Southern California and Atlanta. Identified potential benefits ranging from $6M to $26M per year have been estimated at each site. D&I activities are in process in the Washington, DC metro and North Texas locations with  additional projects soon to follow in Houston Atlanta, Charlotte, Northern California, and Southern California.

In order to achieve these benefits, we know that we need to continue working with our partners in the aviation community. Making sure that we are all on the same page about our expectations, our obligations, and our capabilities is essential to the successful planning, development, and execution of NextGen. In recognition of the need for clarity and transparency, the Administration, in conjunction with the airlines, is actively developing new PBN dashboards that will provide additional information on the use of high value procedures that are already deployed and also clarify the development status of high value new procedures around the country. 

The FAA continues to expand its work on demonstrations, trials and initial deployment of NextGen systems and procedures. NAS operators and users – particularly participants in the demonstrations and trials – are benefiting from them. But there is a chicken-and-egg nature to the economic and policy decisions that will have the most influence over the extent and timing of future benefits.

On the one hand, achieving NextGen’s benefits depends heavily on aircraft operators and other stakeholders investing in the avionics, ground equipment, staffing, training, and procedures they will need to take advantage of the infrastructure that the FAA puts in place to transform the aviation system in the coming decade and beyond. On the other hand, the willingness of operators and other stakeholders to make these investments depends critically on the business case for them – analyses of how valuable these benefits will be, and that they have confidence that the FAA can deliver the infrastructure in the time frames and manner required for those benefits to be realized.

When costs are clear but benefits are even slightly cloudy, there is an important information gap which the FAA must help fill. We are working to do this in two ways. First, we conduct broad, system-level analyses, estimating how integrated NextGen benefits will develop and grow over a period of years. This work draws on modeling and simulations of how NAS operations will change and what effects the changes will have. The FAA must continue to work closely with the aviation community to ensure these benefits are well understood by those who need to invest in NextGen.

Second, using facilities like the Florida NextGen Test Bed, we conduct a wide range of demonstrations and operational trials of specific NextGen systems and procedures. These demonstrations, conducted in real-world settings by operations and development personnel using prototype equipment, are invaluable. They provide all of the stakeholders with the opportunity to see the very real benefits that NextGen can bring. They mitigate program risks and show us whether we are on the right track in our technical approaches. They provide valuable insight into how equipment should be designed for operability, maintainability, and a sound human-automation interface. And they are instrumental in advancing our understanding of the benefits to be gained from the capabilities being demonstrated.

Information from the demonstrations also helps us refine our models of NAS operations and how these operations will change, along with the corresponding overall estimate of NextGen benefits. Further, it provides direct measurements of the ways specific NextGen capabilities can benefit NAS stakeholders and the public, enabling stakeholders to improve their own estimates of the benefits and costs of buying equipment for NextGen and to be more confident of their analyses.

We are working steadily and carefully to bring NextGen to fruition. We are hopeful that the Florida NextGen Test Bed, in conjunction with our other testing environments, will spur innovation and collaboration by and with industry, and hasten the realization of the multitude of benefits NextGen has to offer.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

STATEMENT OF

J. RANDOLPH BABBITT,
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

BEFORE THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SAFETY OVERSIGHT,

MAY 24, 2011.

Chairwoman Cantwell, Senator Thune, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the issues facing the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) air traffic control safety oversight.   Several recent incidents and reports have called into question the safety of our nation’s airspace and the professionalism of our air traffic controllers.  Obviously, as Administrator, the fact that these incidents occurred and that these questions are being asked is extremely disturbing.  Today I will describe the actions that we have taken to address the areas of concern.  I want every Member of this Committee to understand how committed Secretary LaHood and I are to working with National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) and our controllers to ensure the safety of the system.  I believe our nation’s air traffic controllers are dedicated and professional and a key reason why we have the safest aviation system in the world.  But we can always improve, and therefore cannot tolerate lapses in judgment when it comes to safety.

In recent weeks, I have been traveling across the country with senior FAA leadership and Paul Rinaldi, the President of NATCA, along with his leadership team, on a Call to Action on Air Traffic Control Safety and Professionalism.  The FAA’s safety mandate is a tremendous responsibility and air traffic controllers are on the front lines of that mandate, day in and day out.  We oversee the safe transportation of nearly two million people per day.  That is why recent events have been so troubling.  I have been very direct in the conversations I have been having with the FAA’s workforce.  Any incident that calls into question the professionalism of air traffic controllers cannot and will not be tolerated. 

Together with NATCA, I have communicated that, even though we do the right thing over 99.9% of the time, we have to do better.  We cannot have the flying public believe, even for an instant, that they cannot trust the men and women who are responsible for getting them to their destination safely.  So I am asking the workforce to rededicate ourselves to the concept of professionalism.  I am calling on  all employees to be responsible, not only for our own actions, but for helping to ensure that our colleagues are also committed to excellence.  I want to create a safety culture that makes it imperative to report and correct any potentially unsafe condition or action.

I am happy to report that we are working hand in hand with NATCA in our efforts.  We both recognize that air traffic controllers have traditionally enjoyed a great deal of respect and admiration, and we do not want to see that perception of their profession tarnished.  NATCA’s leadership is willing to work hard with us to demonstrate a united front in demanding a new level of excellence.  I am proud that FAA’s relationship with NATCA has improved to the point where this joint effort is possible.  A few years ago, it might not have been.  I think we can all agree that working together toward a goal achieves a better result than working at odds. 

As this Committee knows, I have been working with the aviation industry since shortly after I became Administrator on the concept of professionalism, and I think we have made some progress in making it a priority.  It only makes sense to extend this conversation to the controller workforce.  What do I think professionalism means?  It means doing the right thing all of the time, even when no one is looking.  It means following procedures and ensuring compliance with safety standards.  It means looking out for each other and making sure that you correct colleagues who are not upholding these standards.  The business of air traffic control is a tremendous responsibility, and I know that the controllers feel that responsibility.  That is why they also need to feel that they are supported.

This means, on the management side, that we have a responsibility to address the areas of risk that have been identified.  For example, we are looking at how to deal with fatigue, which as this Committee knows is a particularly difficult issue.  Part of it is staffing, part of it is scheduling, part of it is education and, yes, part of it is professional responsibility.  FAA has been focused on mitigating controller fatigue since well before the recently reported incidents.  FAA and NATCA conducted a joint, in-depth assessment of controller fatigue, risks and mitigations beginning in the fall of 2010.  Twelve recommendations are currently under consideration as a result of that review.  We want to ensure that we fully understand the impact of any changes made before we make them.

Since the reported incidents, there was an immediate agreement to allow for more recuperative time between shifts; a minimum of 9 hours in between all shifts.  In addition, two air traffic controllers are required on duty during the midnight shift at 27 control towers across the country where only one controller had been scheduled previously, including Reagan National Airport here in Washington, D.C.  Other scheduling changes have been implemented to accommodate this change without immediately hiring additional controllers.  The FAA Academy will expand and update its fatigue management training to help controllers recognize, avoid, and combat fatigue.  Not all of the changes are universally welcomed.  But I am convinced that adding an extra layer of safety is the right thing to do. 

The science of fatigue management for air traffic controllers is still an emerging discipline.  There will undoubtedly be continued insights about how to mitigate fatigue and improve safety.  Our challenge is to implement the benefit of new insights while still being good stewards of the taxpayer dollar.  I look forward to sharing how FAA will move forward in this vital effort.

The recent incidents have come at a time when we have seen an overall increase in the reporting of controller operational errors.  This is a serious and complex issue for the FAA and one I would like to take a moment to discuss. 

For many years now, the aviation industry has been collecting data provided voluntarily by airline employees that it and the FAA have been analyzing. There is universal agreement that having access to safety information we would otherwise not know about has allowed us to identify trends and better understand the areas of risk that exist in the system so that we can focus our collective efforts on minimizing those risks.  The FAA believes that this approach has already contributed to the remarkable decline of commercial aviation accidents; a decline of 82% since the late 1990s.  With that kind of recognized success, it only makes sense to look for a way to expand this approach to air traffic control. 

In late 2009, the FAA implemented confidential reporting systems and incentives for controllers to provide information directly to supervisors. We were seeking to achieve the same gains in knowledge and awareness of safety conditions in the air traffic control system that we did with the airlines.  The reporting program we implemented, the Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP), was similar to those applicable for airlines.   Further, we deployed additional technology to collect safety data.  It is certainly fair to note that when the airlines implemented confidential reporting and improved flight data recording systems, the safety data available increased by a factor of 10 or more, so there was certainly an expectation that some significant increase in data reported with regard to air traffic would result.  The important thing to remember is that this is data that we want.  This is data that we need.  This is data that will save lives. 

The above noted changes generated over 28,000 confidential safety reports made to ATSAP on numerous safety issues.  Although ATSAP filings do not get counted as operational errors, FAA believes that the improved recording systems combined with the overall safety culture that ATSAP and other programs are designed to foster, are at least partially responsible for the 53% increase in the number of losses of separation between FY 2009 and FY 2010. 

The majority of the time, errors and other safety reports provide the FAA with knowledge critical to identifying and correcting potential risk.  The more events the FAA is made aware of, whether through digital recording programs or voluntary reporting systems, the greater the opportunity to resolve the conditions that resulted in those errors.  The only way to address system risk is to have as much data available as possible to identify problem areas, determine root cause and apply sustainable correction.  We are now poised to tackle the task of fundamentally addressing the issues that contribute to operational errors and other safety occurrences.

But voluntary disclosure doesn’t necessarily provide everything we need, which is why we are also relying on technology to inform us of errors that might otherwise not get reported.   We have begun using the Traffic Analysis Review Program (TARP), a new software tool that will automatically detect losses of separation, collect data, and report them directly to FAA’s quality assurance group for analysis.  TARP covers the Terminal area, where we have the highest degree of congestion. A similar system was implemented in the En Route environment several years ago.  While we are still discussing the implementation of this program with NATCA, we anticipate its use on a 24/7 basis within this fiscal year.

An important thing to note is that all operational errors are not created equal.  Most operational errors are categorized through a system that reflects how much of the safety zone was breached.  Most errors are classified based on severity as A, B, or C, with A being the closest in range and C the furthest apart.  Errors in the A category are generally the most troubling. Other losses are classified as “Other” or “miscellaneous” in order to capture those errors where such precise measurements are not possible, for example, non-radar, oceanic, terrain, procedural or equipment errors. 

The table below is based on FAA data collections on separation events since 2007.  The large increase in reports filed between the end of 2009 and the end of 2010 is concurrent with the implementation of voluntary reporting programs and additional electronic data collection. 

In 2010, 1887 errors were reported, of which 443 were classified as A or B.  To put these numbers in context, there were more than 133 million Tower, Tracon and En Route air traffic control operations during the same time period in 2010.  While the data has not been subject to a statistical validation or significance test, it appears that error rates in the most serious incident categories (A and B) are lower than the overall error rate.  I think it is fair to say that, while any error is troubling and taken very seriously, the numbers above suggest that these types of errors are a relatively a rare event. 

So in conclusion, I would like to reiterate two important points.  First and foremost, the types of controller incidents that have reflected poorly on the FAA’s dedication to its safety mission are being addressed aggressively, and, where possible, collaboratively to identify and mitigate risks, whether they stem from scheduling, staffing, technology, training or a combination of thereof.  Second, I am committed to obtaining the most information possible to understand how to make the system safer.  I take the rise in reported errors very seriously, but it is vital for everyone to understand how important information is.  I know how disconcerting it is for the public to hear on the news that there are flaws or risks in the system.  But it is essential for the public to put those stories into context and recognize that the safety record of commercial aviation is not an accident – that it is based on the use of critical information, to make informed decisions.  These two points work hand in hand.   Information is vital to improve safety, but where information discloses inappropriate actions or attitudes, those individuals who cannot meet the standards of professionalism and proficiency that FAA demands will be subject to retraining or replacement, as appropriate.

This has been a difficult time for all of us who are dedicated to aviation safety.  Our commitment is strong and enduring.  But I am convinced that these challenges give us the opportunity to move forward in a positive and productive way. I look forward to working with Congress, FAA’s workforce, industry and the public to implement improved standards that benefit the safety of a system that is both the most complex and the safest in the world.

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

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RANDOLPH BABBITT, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, ON REAUTHORIZATION OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS, FEBRUARY 8, 2011.

Chairman Petri, Congressman Costello, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the need to pass comprehensive reauthorization legislation for the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) programs.  Before I begin my statement, I would like to acknowledge the many changes that have occurred to this Committee and Subcommittee since I last appeared before you.  The Committee has many new Members whom I look forward to getting to know.  Since I am a frequent guest of this Committee, I am sure I will get to know those of you who are new to the process and I look forward to working with all of you.

FAA’s mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.  We make sure the planes are safe.  We make sure runways are safe.  We make sure that aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS) operate safely and efficiently.  While this sounds simple, I can assure you it is not.   Approximately 50,000 flights are operated on any given day.  We move approximately 750 million people through the system on an annual basis.  Yet, even as the number of passengers and flights increase, the accident rate continues to decrease.  In calendar year 2010, there were zero commercial passenger fatalities in the United States.  In the past four years, we have had only one fatal passenger accident.  During that time, 42 million passenger flights were operated safely.  Every fatality is a failure and we continue to strive to make those failures even rarer than they are today, but we are proud of the strides we’ve made. 

As the sheer volume of the traffic indicates, aviation is critical to the way we live our lives and run our businesses.  The aviation industry alone directly employs 1.1 million people and supports more than 11 million jobs in related industries and through spending by direct aviation employees.  Altogether, this represents 6% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  Consequently, long term authorization of FAA’s programs is extremely important.

For some of you who may not know the long history of the reauthorization effort, there have been 17 extensions of FAA’s programs since the last comprehensive legislation expired in 2007.  There are many reasons why we are at this point, but the bottom line is that the failure to enact long term, comprehensive aviation legislation has had troubling impacts.  While there has not been a gap in the authorization of FAA’s programs, there is always uncertainty about the passage of the next extension.  Many of the extensions have been for relatively short periods of time, which has made managing our programs, particularly our airport grant program, extremely difficult.  In addition, there are many legislative provisions that direct the agency’s action in certain areas.  Some of these provisions would require the FAA to redirect resources or modify strategic decisions.  Passage of long term legislation would provide needed clarity.  Uncertainty about how Congress may act in certain areas makes moving forward in those areas more complicated.  If we make a strategic decision that the legislation requires us to change, it could be costly and inefficient.  We can no longer afford to operate in a continued state of uncertainty. 

The program that has sustained the most profound effects of the short term extensions is the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).  Airports and their contractors have been forced to divide construction projects into smaller components so that they can be funded by the money made available by a particular extension.  Airport sponsors cannot risk embarking on a project for which the funds are not available in their entirety because of lack of a long term authorization.  Some airports have chosen to delay important safety and capacity projects until a more certain funding source is in place.  This has caused a major increase in the amount of entitlement funding being carried over each year.  For several years before the expiration of our authorization, the average amount of funding carried over each year was approximately $400 million.  Due to the serial extensions, the average amount carried over each year has consistently stayed in the $500-$600 million range, an indicator that the available funding is not being used in the best or most efficient way. 

Administrative and project costs have increased due to the need for multiple grants to be issued for a single project.  The number of AIP grants issued in 2008 through 2010 increased 35% over the three year period prior to the expiration of the last reauthorization in 2007.  Such cost increases and project inefficiencies cannot be justified.

During my tenure as Administrator, I have not had the luxury of guiding the agency under a comprehensive, long term authorization.  But I want to assure the Subcommittee that the agency has not been idle while awaiting passage of comprehensive authorization.  This is a dynamic time in an extremely dynamic industry.  NextGen will transform the way we fly and do business.  It will move us from radar to satellite, from radio to data communications, from traditional airways to streamlined routes.  Knowing what the future holds, it is imperative that we transform our national aviation system and the FAA over the next 15 years. Our goal is to work closely with industry to implement new technologies and procedures that are sustainable and to work with our international partners to establish uniform standards around the globe. 

Last year, we asked an outside group to help us evaluate how we could effect change to better support the upcoming challenges.  Representatives spent five months talking with employees and other stakeholders and surveying opinions.  The review team talked with more than 100 executives, former FAA employees, and representatives from the Department of Transportation.  Twenty-five hundred managers were surveyed, across the agency.  The results showed that FAA’s culture is highly operational, tactical and safety-oriented.  FAA employees are committed to and proud of our safety mission.  However, the findings also indicated that, as an organization, we need to take a hard look at how we operate.  We need to make sure we are structured to effectively implement the Next Generation Air Transportation System, or “NextGen,” deliver shared services and reach out and engage our stakeholders.

Based on the information obtained and evaluated, we are implementing recommendations for change in a variety of areas that will help us reach our long term goals and increase our effectiveness.  One such recommendation is to avoid duplication of effort and streamline similar functions as much as possible.  In addition, we need to improve our capabilities in areas such as hiring, promoting and retaining employees, so that we have the world class workforce necessary to support NextGen.  This will require a more holistic approach with better collaboration across different parts of the organization.  The agency is creating shared goals and metrics that all employees can work toward.  Achieving these improvements will require strong leadership across the agency which can only happen if we improve the way we select and develop executives.  Changes and streamlining in the agency will better position us to improve our flexibility and effectiveness, make the most of our resources, and meet the challenges presented by this dynamic period in aviation.

As it happens, this dynamic period in aviation coincides with a time of great economic challenges.  That is why I feel very passionately that the FAA must demonstrate the strong business case for our major initiatives, and there is no greater example than NextGen.  We need to demonstrate the operational and fiscal benefits to encourage widespread participation. 

For example, we are moving forward with nationwide deployment of the satellite based surveillance system, Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).  In the Gulf of Mexico, we’ve installed ADS-B radio stations on oil platforms as part of an agreement with Helicopter Association International, oil and natural gas companies and helicopter operators.  ADS-B equipped aircraft will receive air traffic services direct to the platform, giving the users far greater flexibility than the restrictive grid system that was in place.  We’ve opened up about a quarter of a million square miles of new, positively controlled airspace.  In addition to the Gulf, ADS-B is up and running in Louisville, Philadelphia, and Alaska, all with very positive results.  Just last week, we announced a partnership with JetBlue to demonstrate the benefits of ADS-B on flights between the Northeast and Florida.

NextGen is also helping us to improve efficiency and provide benefits through the deployment of Performance-based Navigation (PBN) procedures that save fuel and emissions of greenhouse gasses and other air pollutants.  We are working in collaboration with Alaska Air Group on a program called “Greener Skies Over Seattle” to deliver reduced emissions and fuel burn through optimized descents and Required Navigation Performance approaches.  Technical working groups are determining what FAA can do to make flights as environmentally friendly as possible.  In the longer term, the FAA will explore the further leveraging of RNP to achieve even greater reductions in emissions and increases in efficiencies.

To date, we’ve published more than 900 Performance-based Navigation procedures, also known as Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) for precision arrival and departure routes and procedures.  Again, making the business case, PBN pays for itself, having already saved millions of dollars in fuel at major U.S. airports.  Southwest Airlines is a prime example.  It is estimated that for every single minute of time saved on each flight, their annual savings quickly add up to 156,000 metric tons in emissions per year, which translates into a savings of $25 million in fuel costs.  When commercial aircraft burn thousands of pounds of fuel per hour, seconds do count.

Surface management is another area where NextGen is making a difference.  Airports need to manage, not only aircraft, but the many other types of vehicles that service the aircraft and airport, which can be challenging.  We’ve deployed airport surface detection radar, ASDE-X, at 27 airports, with another eight scheduled to receive it by 2013.  Initiatives at JFK and Memphis demonstrate that the technologies and procedures put in place reduced taxi times by about two to four minutes.  Again, seconds count.  But most importantly, ASDE-X provides another layer of safety by improving situational awareness for both operators and controllers.

Our NextGen goals include environmental and energy sustainability.  As we implement NextGen operational capabilities, we will apply environmental management systems to improve environmental performance and streamline environmental reviews.  We are also working to accelerate improvements in engine and airframe technologies to reduce noise, air pollution, and fuel burn through efforts such as FAA’s Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) technology partnership with industry.  Our Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) achieved a landmark in 2009 with the approval of a fuel specification that allows alternative fuels to be deployed as jet fuels.  We seek to strengthen efforts to achieve affordable commercial scale production of sustainable alternative aviation fuels.

One final point of pride that I would like to share with you is the results of our Navigation (NAV) Procedures Project or NAV Lean.  NAV Lean is a good example of how FAA listens to our stakeholders and works to address their concerns.  Airlines that invested in equipping their aircraft with technology to take advantage of PBN are dependent upon the FAA to approve, certify, and publish RNAV and RNP arrival and departure procedures.  The existing procedure development process accomplishes the desired production goals with the highest level of safety.  However, the question was, could we do our work more efficiently?  To answer this, we set up NAV Lean team to evaluate our current processes for developing all Instrument Flight Procedures, both performance-based and conventional, to determine where streamlining could occur.  Our goal was to maximize customer value, while minimizing waste.  The group worked to identify areas containing unnecessary redundancies, inefficiencies or delays, know as the “Lean Process.”  Obviously, the overarching goal is to ensure the safety and integrity of the process, procedures and training, but to do it in a smarter way.

The group worked for almost nine months.  I am pleased to announce today that their report was recently issued.  It contains 21 recommendations for streamlining the procedure development process which will result in up to a 40% reduction of the time it takes to develop and approve a requested procedure.  A team is now working on our plan to implement the recommendations.  We expect to complete our implementation plan for these recommendations by June 1.  Not only will this mean users of the system will see the benefits of their navigation technology investments sooner, but the FAA will improve the efficiency and utilization of the airspace and demonstrate our commitment to NextGen.

In conclusion, although FAA has continued to work to improve safety and efficiency in the absence of a long-term authorization, I strongly urge the Committee to act to pass this much needed legislation.  We need the certainty and clarity such legislation would provide.  We need to understand the direction in which Congress wants us to move in order to act in an efficient and effective manner.  We need to be able to rely on stable funding for the agency.  And we need for programmatic efficiencies to be restored. 

I think we all understand that the challenges of implementing NextGen and improving the safety and efficiency of aviation come at a time when tough investment choices need to be made.  I plan to continue to make the case that investment in aviation is important, not only to airlines, passengers and pilots, but to the strength of the overall economy and businesses around the country.  In an industry like aviation, standing still or moving backward is not an option.  This Committee, in particular, demands a lot of the FAA, and rightly so.  But meeting these demands requires investment.  I think our case is compelling and the return on investment is not one we can or should ignore.

I look forward to continuing to work with those of you I know and getting to know those of you I don’t.  We all have our work cut out for us. 

This concludes my statement.  I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF

PETER H. APPEL

ADMINISTRATOR, RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY

                              U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 14, 2011

Transportation Research Priorities: Maximizing Return on Investment of Taxpayer Dollars

Chairman Quayle, Ranking Member Wu, and Members of the Subcommittee:

On behalf of Secretary Ray LaHood, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss the research, development and technology priorities of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

It will come as no surprise to this Subcommittee that the research, development and technology priorities of the Department are the same as the strategic objectives for American transportation that Secretary LaHood has set forth:

• Safety – our number one priority;
• State of Good Repair – optimal condition and performance of our infrastructure;
• Economic Competitiveness – targeted investments to better serve the traveling public and facilitate freight movement, while supporting American jobs and exports;
• Livable Communities – increasing travel choice and providing access to affordable transportation; and
• Environmental Sustainability – addressing transportation’s impacts on air, water and natural ecosystems.

As always, the Department seeks to implement our research and technology programs in the most effective means possible, conducting research that advances national transportation goals while ensuring that the various Operating Administrations of the Department do not duplicate research efforts.  The organization I am privileged to lead, the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, or RITA, guides the development of research and technology priorities, and research coordination across the Department.

RITA works to identify synergies and opportunities for collaboration in support of the Department's priorities.  For example, RITA has pulled together all of the human factors experts across the Department to address the crucial safety issue of operator fatigue, no matter the mode.

Setting research priorities starts with the Research, Development and Technology (RD&T) Planning Council, which I chair.  The Council consists of my fellow heads of the Operating Administrations and key members of the Office of the Secretary.  The Council sets forth guidance, oversees implementation, and identifies at a policy level the coordination that needs to occur to meet new challenges in research and technology.  A recent example of this guidance is the creation of the DOT Safety Council, to share best practices and results in safety systems. 

Our guidance is implemented through the RD&T Planning Team, which includes the Associate Administrators for research in each Operating Administration. The Team meets monthly to discuss ongoing research activities, to convene clusters of researchers and program managers in specific disciplines, to facilitate research alignment with DOT priorities, and to ensure that research we undertake has clear value and has a path to deployment. The Team coordinates DOT research with non-DOT-funded research being conducted in the states, at universities, in the private and non-profit sectors, and through the Transportation Research Board (TRB).  We routinely interact with these and other stakeholders to ensure that research has champions willing to test, demonstrate, and deploy the results of our research.

A key tool that RITA has deployed over this past year to accelerate this collaboration are fourteen scientific “Research Clusters.”   These Clusters were identified by the Team as the priority topics on which DOT researchers should collaborate with each other and with our external stakeholders.  Each Cluster has a dedicated on-line collaboration portal which includes shared research, activities, searches through the National Transportation Library, and links to research stored on TRB’s Transportation Research International Documentation and Research in Progress databases. 

The fourteen Research Clusters currently include:

• Data Driven Decision-Making,
• Economics,
• Energy Sustainability,
• Human Factors,
• Infrastructure and Materials,
• Livability,
• Risk-Based Analysis to Address Safety Issues,
• Modeling and Simulation,
• Multimodal Intelligent Transportation Systems,
• Policy Analysis,
• Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT),
• System Resilience and Global Logistics,
• Transportation Implications For an Aging Population and Those With Special Needs, and
• Travel Behavior.

RITA reaches out to other Federal agencies to address Administration research and technology priorities, and to make sure that our work on similar topics is complementary.  For example, we serve on the interagency Biomass R&D Board, and recently hosted the Interagency Biofuels Infrastructure Workshop.  We have significant interest in the Department of Energy’s SmartGrid work, especially as it relates to electric vehicle deployment.  Through our involvement at the National Science and Technology Council, we work on Administration priorities relating to technical standards policy and development, nanotechnology in materials, and wireless broadband deployment.

RITA is the Department’s lead on cross-cutting technology transfer activities.  RITA’s Technology Transfer program seeks to move the Department’s investment in research and technology into application, and to facilitate commercialization.  RITA hosts events to showcase research technologies developed by Departmentally-funded programs, most recently the April 6, 2011, University Research Technology Transfer Day at DOT Headquarters.

We have seen many DOT-funded research and technology results come to commercialization – among these are several of which you may have heard:

1. A Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) project resulted in “Solar Roadways,” the unique concept to make roads out of recyclable solar panels.  Solar Roadways won the first GE Ecomagination Challenge, and we are funding a Phase II SBIR project. 
2. The Northwestern University Transportation Center is using innovative analytical methods to determine the best locations in the Chicago area for electric vehicle charging stations.  These innovations are already being applied in other regions to support electric vehicle deployment.
3. The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Hughes Technical Center tested the engineered material arresting systems that safely stop aircraft that overshoot the runway end.  It is deployed at over 50 runway ends at over 35 major airports, and has prevented seven major accidents.
4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) research has brought many improvements to daily transportation operations – traffic management centers, improved work zone safety, transit customer information services (like NextBus), electronic payment systems (like EZPass), and traveler information systems. 

Deployment is thoughtfully and continuously coordinated from the start of the innovation cycle with our stakeholders in state and local governments, port and airport authorities, transit agencies, and all of the industries that build and operate America’s transportation systems.  Each Operating Administration conducts a research planning process to identify their top priorities for future operational and safety improvements.  These planning efforts are consistently coordinated with stakeholders, both to ensure that we are meeting the needs of the people actually operating the system, and to ensure deployment champions in the field.  Because DOT research results range from new data analyses, to new designs and materials, to more effective operational methods, to technologies like Intelligent Transportation Systems and the Next Generation Air Transportation System, methods for coordination and deployment are scaled to suit.

Much of our research is undertaken in response to Congressional mandate or National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations and to other pressing safety issues, often to support new or refined safety regulations and guidance.  We involve all parties from the beginning to the end of the innovation cycle to ensure that we are researching the best possible opportunities to resolve the safety issues, and that our results are deployable and economically effective in daily operations.

The Department works closely with almost 100 Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) to ensure that the results of our research and technology demonstrations are incorporated into the codes and standards that transportation operators use every day to work safely and efficiently.  One of our closest partners in this effort is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), represented here today by John Halikowski.  AASHTO routinely takes research results and incorporates them into AASHTO standards, guiding state and local transportation agencies in improving planning, design, operations and maintenance. 

The Department is focused on working with our State and local partners to accelerate the deployment and acceptance of new technologies.  For example, the FHWA Every Day Counts Initiative is designed to identify and deploy innovation aimed at shortening project delivery time, enhancing roadway safety, and protecting the environment.  A major pillar of Every Day Counts is to move effective, proven and market–ready technologies into widespread use.  In support of our local partners, the FHWA’s Local Technical Assistance Program and Tribal Technical Assistance Program enables counties, parishes, townships, cities, towns and tribal governments to improve their operations by supplying them with a variety of training programs, an information clearinghouse, technology updates, and customized technical assistance.

Continued success in research and technology innovation and deployment requires us to keep what has worked, while continuing to find creative ways to break down barriers.  The Administration supports the following goals:

• simplifying the existing surface transportation research program;
• maximizing research funding flexibility so that available resources are applied to Departmental and stakeholder priorities;
• using full and open competition, and peer review, to get the best possible researchers and technologists working on top priorities; and
• emphasizing performance-based management of programs.

I would like to call your attention to specific innovation reforms which the Obama Administration supports:

• authorizing FHWA a technology and innovation deployment program, specifically to test, evaluate, and accelerate the delivery and deployment of technologies;
• allowing FHWA to increase research efficiency by expanding the authority to conduct research in collaboration with international partners;
• reorganizing RITA’s University Transportation Centers program on a fully-competitive consortia model, to better leverage the intellectual capital created through the Federal investment in the important work of the universities;
• authorizing a Multimodal Innovative Research Program to competitively award advanced multimodal transportation research projects, facilitating practical innovative approaches to address systemic transportation problems; and
• enabling RITA’s National Transportation Library to establish agreements with other transportation libraries and information centers, to improve the accessibility and exchange of high quality transportation information and data that support operations, policy development, and decision-making.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide an overview of the Department’s transportation research priorities.  I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE POLLY TROTTENBERG
UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLICY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

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

How the Financial Status of the Highway Trust Fund Impacts
Surface Transportation Programs

July 23, 2013

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

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Obama Administration and Secretary Anthony Foxx to discuss the future of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF or Trust Fund) and its role in supporting our Nation’s transportation needs.

Since its inception, the HTF has provided a successful model for funding surface transportation investments.  Yet in recent years, investment needs and authorized funding levels have outpaced the available highway-user revenues.  As a result, for the past five years, the HTF has come perilously close to being insolvent.  Although collectively the Administration and the Congress have successfully used a variety of short-term measures to keep the Trust Fund solvent, we need a more permanent solution.

History

As you know, the Trust Fund was established in 1956 to provide a financially sound, reliable, and consistent approach for funding highway infrastructure, and over time transit and highway safety programs.  This funding construct benefited from two key elements.  First, by using a “trust fund” mechanism, major decisions about the HTF were decided in multi-year authorization bills rather than through the annual appropriations process.  This provided assurances to the States and other grant recipients that resources needed to finance their major projects would be available over a longer time horizon, giving State legislatures and transportation planners confidence to move forward with project development.          

A second key element was the establishment of a dedicated funding source.  The Trust Fund was created based on the “user pays” principle, in which highway users pay a cents per gallon fuel tax on gasoline and diesel (and eventually gasohol), in addition to other related excise taxes, with revenue dedicated to the HTF.  Revenues from the motor fuel tax are deposited into the U.S. Treasury, and in turn are made available to the Trust Fund for expenditures by State highway and transit agencies.  In 1956 the gasoline tax rate was 3 cents per gallon and in 1959 it was increased to 4 cents per gallon.  In 1982, President Ronald Reagan signed the Surface Transportation Assistance Act which raised the gas tax to 9 cents per gallon and expanded the use of the HTF to include a new account to support public transportation.  It was at this point that the HTF was divided into the Highway Account and the Mass Transit Account.  In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the OmnibusBudget Reconciliation Act which raised the gas tax by 5 cents, bringing it to 14.1 cents per gallon but with half of the increase going into the General Fund for federal deficit reduction.  In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed a bill increasing the tax by 4.3 cents, bringing the total to 18.4 cents per gallon, with the entire increase going into the general Fund for deficit reduction.

Eventually the portions of the gasoline tax reserved for deficit reduction were redirected to the HTF.  The initial 2.5 cents for deficit reduction was redirected beginning in October 1995 per the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.  The remaining 4.3 cents for deficit reduction were redirected to the HTF per the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.  Of the 18.3 cents dedicated to the HTF, 15.44 cents goes to the Highway Account and 2.86 cents to the Mass Transit Account.  

For the first four decades of its existence, the HTF collected interest on unspent balances.  The Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21) eliminated that authority effective September 1998.  Congress later restored the HTF's ability to earn interest in the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2010. 

Although purchasing power has decreased and construction costs have increased by more than 70 percent over the last two decades, the 18.4 cent gas tax has not been changed since 1993.    

Recent Solvency Concerns

Until 2007, the HTF was generally viewed as an effective model for financing our national surface transportation investments.  This mechanism provided funds for needed reinvestment in existing surface transportation infrastructure as well as new construction and expansion.  Prior to this time period, the balances in the Highway Account exceeded the projected spending needs by several billion dollars.  However, longer-term projections were already showing a downward trend in the Highway Account.

In late Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, the Department of Transportation announced that there was insufficient cash in the Highway Account to fully cover all outstanding bills, with ‘bills’ primarily referring to reimbursement requests for work States and metropolitan planning organizations had already performed.  This was the first the Highway Trust Fund faced a significant cash shortfall in nearly 50 years.  The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) immediately ceased its twice daily bill payments and began to make bill payments once a week.  This enabled FHWA to better calculate how much funding was available to pay bills and determine a pro-rata share across the States should insufficient cash be available to pay all of the agency’s bills. 

Transportation Secretary Mary Peters asked the Congress for additional funds to restore solvency to the Trust Fund, which was provided.  The Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Restore the Highway Trust Fund Act transferred $8.017 billion from the General Fund to the Highway Account of the HTF—an amount sufficient to maintain baseline program levels through the end of FY 2008.  While this resolved the immediate shortfall in the Fund, it did not resolve the widening gap between HTF receipts and baseline surface transportation spending.  To keep the Fund solvent, through several Acts Congress has cumulatively transferred $54.5 billion in general funds to augment the Trust Fund.

Short and Long Term Factors

A number of converging factors have brought the Trust Fund to its current state: a structural deficit that is not projected to subside.  Beginning with sharp increases in fuel prices last decade, the rate of growth of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) declined as Americans began to economize their fuel consumption.  This trend was exacerbated by the “Great Recession” in late 2007.  Per capita VMT peaked in 2005 and continues to fall.  Annual VMT dropped from approximately 3.03 trillion in 2008 to approximately 2.95 trillion as of April 2013.

It is generally recognized that the decline in VMT, and the corresponding decrease in fuel tax revenue between 2007 and 2009, was partially a reflection of fewer people and goods moving on our Nation’s highways as economic activity slowed.  However, evidence suggests that the flattening or decline of VMT is a long-term trend independent of the recession, as VMT has generally continued to decline annually since 2009 when the economy began to recover. 

Two fundamental shifts have occurred that are projected to continue this trend for the foreseeable future.  The first is the increased popularity of more fuel efficient vehicles.  From the perspective of drivers, fuel efficient vehicles offer a way to reduce costs while also reducing environmental impacts.  As proud as we are of our accomplishments on Corporate Average Fuel Economy or CAFE, paradoxically, improvements in fuel efficiency contribute to a reduction in the Trust Fund’s resources and our ability to continue improvement of the Nation’s transportation system.  In 1993, the average gas mileage of  a light duty vehicle was 19 miles per gallon; two decades later it has improved by more than 10 percent. 

A second fundamental factor is a generational shift in travel preferences in the Millennial Generation and among retiring Baby Boomers.  Increasingly these cohorts are moving into mixed-use urban cores where the need for driving is reduced.  The 2010 Census saw for the first time more than 80 percent of the population living in urbanized areas.  Study after study has shown this market trend to be real and continuing to impact real estate demand.  Some choose to get rid of their car for economic reasons, some for social reasons, and some decide to never get a car in the first place. 

This has also resulted in an increasing demand for alternative forms of transportation, including transit, rail, walking and biking, which has larger policy implications for future transportation planning and investment.

Despite the recent decrease in revenue, authorized surface transportation spending increased, and has continued to increase.  Labor and material costs associated with highway construction have generally increased.  While some of the increased spending reflects investment in additional projects, we must also recognize that each year that goes by every dollar purchases a little less.  A highway built in 2013 simply costs more to plan and construct than a similar one built in 1993.  It is not surprising that the contrast between our spending needs and a decline in HTF resources has brought us to this point, even though annual spending has been consistent with baseline estimates. 

Current Projections

The President’s FY 2014 Mid-Session Review estimates that the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund will have a cash balance of $4.6 billion while the Mass Transit Account will have a cash balance of $300 million by the end of FY 2014. 

When all these combined factors are considered, our the current data indicates that both the Highway Account and the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund will face another shortfall soon after the end of FY 2014.  While the timing of the forecasts is subject to change, there is little doubt that another funding shortfall will soon be upon us.  Based on our projections, over the next 6 years, there will be a persistent and growing gap.

It is also helpful to understand how funds are awarded and grantees are paid from the Highway and Mass Transit Accounts. 

As prescribed by statute, FHWA annually apportions a majority of Federal-aid funding to States through six core formula programs.  The funds are provided to each State within funding categories or programs that focus on key areas, such as the National Highway Performance Program, Surface Transportation Program, and Highway Safety Improvement Program.  State DOTs are the designated recipients or “grantees” for the funds and oversee decisions regarding the selection of projects for funding and are responsible for ensuring Federal requirements are met, including those for funds eligibility.

Cash is not provided in advance.  Based on the notice of funds distribution, a State DOT enters into agreements with the FHWA to commit Federal funds to projects and then subsequently awards contracts to construction companies to do the work.

States rely on prompt payments from the Highway Trust Fund to pay their contractors.  FHWA pays grantees the actual eligible expenses incurred on a progress payment basis as the State DOT submits bills to FHWA.  Some States bill FHWA every day while others seek reimbursement weekly or semimonthly.  The total amount of these payments out of the HTF fluctuates during the fiscal year and can exceed $5 billion in a given month.

Should the Highway Account of the HTF experience a cash shortfall, FHWA would implement established cash management procedures.  The exact response would be dependent on the specific situation; however, FHWA may implement some or all of the following procedures depending on the scope and duration of the situation:

• Move from reimbursing State DOTs on a daily basis to a weekly basis.
• Provide partial, pro-rated reimbursements to State DOTs based on cash on hand.
• Align payment frequency with deposits into the Highway Account (twice monthly payments).

Should the shortfall situation continue, FHWA may ultimately make partial payments twice a month, based on the amount of cash deposited into the Highway Account.  These deposits would only allow FHWA to cover a fraction of States' reimbursement requests.  A reduction in the frequency and amount of reimbursements to State DOTs would have a negative impact on the States' ability to continue their level of infrastructure investment, including critical safety and state of good repair projects, and repayment of debt.

Briefly, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) formula funds are apportioned each year to urbanized areas and rural areas based on statutory requirements like population and the level of transit service (vehicle revenue miles) reported to FTA.  There are approximately 800 urban transit providers and more than 1,300 rural transit providers who receive or benefit from FTA funding. 

Once funds are apportioned, transit grantees submit grant applications to FTA identifying projects that will be funded.  FTA then approves the grants, which authorizes grantees to be reimbursed for eligible project expenses on a rolling basis.  The amount of these payments fluctuates during the fiscal year and can be as high as $1 billion in a given month. 

Given the estimated shortfall in the Mass Transit Account, FTA estimates that a $1 billion “cash cushion” must be maintained to ensure that it will have sufficient cash-on-hand at all times to pay grantees.  If the balance in the Mass Transit Account falls below $1 billion, FTA will have to implement cash management procedures and – at that point in time when there is insufficient cash to pay its bills – will slow down payments to grantees to stretch out the available cash-on-hand. 

The continued long-term solvency of the HTF impacts all FTA grantees, especially those is smaller and rural communities.  A large number of FTA’s 1,300 rural transit providers would be profoundly impacted by a sudden shortfall in funding due to the significant federal contribution involved in these projects.  For example, Grand Gateway Economic Development Association serving Big Cabin, Oklahoma relied on more than $2.5 million from FTA in 2012 alone, which was 59.8 percent of the transit agency’s annual budget.  And in South Carolina, Waccamaw Regional Transportation Authority received more than $3.3 million in 2012 – nearly 53 percent of that agency’s annual budget.  And, Flagstaff, Arizona’s Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority received just shy of 58 percent of its annual budget from FTA.

Looking Forward 

The need for investment in our Nation’s surface transportation system is obvious to all of us.  The 2010 Conditions and Performance Report, estimated that maintaining the Nation’s highway system, and improving it to meet future demand, would require that all levels of government combined increase capital investments from $91 billion currently spent to $170 billion annually over a 20-year period. 

The same 2010 report estimates that achieving a state of good repair for the nation’s transit systems, while accommodating future ridership growth over a 20-year period, requires an annual increase in capital investments from $16 billion currently spent to between $21 billion and $25 billion.  Both of these investment need estimates do not take into account operations and maintenance costs, and are based on 2008 data.  The Department is currently preparing a new Conditions and Performance report which will contain updated investment need figures.

The Administration has consistently proposed groundbreaking commitments to not only expand transit options for Americans, but just as importantly, maintain our transit systems in a state of good repair. A September 2010 FTA study found that the nation’s transit systems, including bus systems, have a $78 billion backlog of assets in marginal or poor condition and that our nation’s transit systems will require an estimated $14.4 billion annual investment to continue to maintain a state of good repair once that backlog is addressed.

In his fiscal year 2014 budget proposal, President Obama proposed a bold $50 billion “Fix-it-First” initiative to spur economic investment and to rebuild America’s transportation network.  The President proposed $9 billion in upfront investments for critical transit infrastructure investments, including $6 billion specifically to address transit state of good repair needs.

The state of good repair of our public transit network is a matter of safety, efficiency, and reliability.  If we do not make the tough decisions now, we will be compromising the safety of our riders and the strength of our economy as the movement of people and goods slows.

Looking forward, we have an opportunity to arrive at a solution that will ensure that the Trust Fund has the capacity to meet these long-term investment needs. 

Administration Proposed Funding Solutions  

Improving our highway and transit infrastructure provides jobs, benefits our citizens, our businesses, our economy, and our way of life.  Finding a solution that acknowledges all of these factors should be our collective goal.

Ultimately, we need to keep in mind that any additional resources provided to the Trust Fund – either from Trust Fund taxes or from General Fund taxes – are paid for by the American people.  Therefore, it is critical that we maximize the efficiency of our current investments.  This will ensure we are getting the most bang for our buck and will demonstrate good stewardship of scarce public funds.  And we must be vigilant about not only pursuing cost savings in project delivery and program management, but also through enhancing the capacity and throughput of existing transportation facilities through better use of innovation, technology and operational improvements.

Over the past five years, a variety of solutions have been offered to help keep the Trust Fund solvent, but none have yet been universally embraced as a long-term solution.  The Obama Administration looks forward to working with Congress and transportation stakeholders throughout the country to find a bipartisan solution to this urgent challenge.

Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF

POLLY TROTTENBERG
UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLICY
U.S.DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
U.S. SENATE

Crumbling Infrastructure: Examining the Challenges of our Outdated
and Overburdened Highways and Bridges

JUNE 13, 2013

Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our Nation’s transportation infrastructure challenges. With me is Victor Mendez, our Federal Highway Administrator.

The I-5 Skagit River Bridge collapse has prompted a necessary conversation about the current state of our Nation’s transportation infrastructure and how such incidents can be prevented in the future.  Thankfully, the May 23 collapse did not cause any serious injuries or loss of life, but it has had, and will continue to have, a major effect on the region’s mobility and economic productivity.

Restoring INFRASTRUCTURE

As Chairman Murray noted, the I-5 Bridge is a vital transportation link for international commerce, carrying an estimated 71,000 vehicles each day, including commuters, between Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia.  As much as $14 billion in freight travels to and from Canada along this busy north-south corridor each year as well.

While it is too early to calculate the full economic impact of the downed bridge, storm-related closures of I-5 in 2007 resulted in more than $47 million of lost economic output.  Businesses in Mount Vernon and Burlington, communities adjacent to the bridge, are already reporting sales decreases of 50 to 80 percent since the bridge collapsed.

According to the Burlington Chamber of Commerce, a local coffee shop typically teeming with customers now experiences hours without any business.  One local, small bank has not opened a single account since the bridge collapsed.  On the freight side, a large trucking company is rescheduling pickup and delivery times to accommodate congestion-related delays at an estimated loss of $21,000 per week. 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is taking the lead in the investigation, working with staff from our Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) headquarters and Washington Division Office.  Within hours of the bridge collapse, FHWA engineers from our Washington Division were on-site to provide technical expertise to NTSB investigators. Additionally, FHWA Deputy Administrator Greg Nadeau visited the bridge site on May 28 and helped expedite a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit to quickly complete debris removal just days after the bridge collapse.

I am proud that the Department acted quickly to minimize economic consequences by making both financial and staffing resources available to Washington State.  We immediately provided $1 million in Emergency Relief program funds to help install a temporary bridge over the river and make permanent repairs.

For the short term, Washington State DOT will put in place an innovative, prefabricated temporary bridge, expected to open next week.  The bridge will be constrained in its use and capacity, with a reduced speed limit, and oversized vehicles will have to use a detour route.

The construction of the permanent replacement span of the bridge will also use innovative methods.  The permanent replacement span is expected to be fabricated on-site.  When construction is complete, the temporary bridge will be removed and the new span will be moved into its permanent location.  With FHWA’s assistance, Washington State DOT expects to have the permanent repairs complete and the restored bridge open to traffic by October 2013. 

And I note that Washington State DOT is the first beneficiary of MAP-21’s categorical exclusion expediting the delivery of critical transportation projects in emergencies.  The Department will continue to stand by Washington State and provide any assistance needed until all repair efforts are completed and this key link in the nation’s highway network is fully operational again.

IMPROVING OUR NATION’S BRIDGES

Despite increased use, the condition of our Nation’s highways and bridges has improved overall in recent years, as a result of new technology and techniques used in the design and construction of projects, as well as condition monitoring. 

With over 600,000 bridges, the percentage of bridges classified as deficient – meaning that they were either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete – dropped from slightly more than 30 percent in 2001 to 26.5 percent in 2009. 

As bridge conditions improve, it is still critical to monitor the condition of the Nation’s bridges and frequently assess the load-carrying capacity of those bridges that are showing signs of deterioration.  The Department’s National Bridge Inspection program relies on federal and state bridge inspectors every day to monitor bridge conditions and ensure critical safety issues are identified and remedied to protect the traveling public.  Safety inspections are conducted at least once every two years on highway bridges that exceed 20 feet in total length, and many bridges are inspected more frequently.

One of the newer technologies aiding in bridge condition monitoring is the use of acoustic emission (AE) equipment. Some bridges are being fitted with the AE instruments that listen to the sounds that a bridge makes and can detect the sound energy produced when a crack occurs or if a crack expands. This information is transmitted back so that continuous bridge condition monitoring is possible.

Despite the Department’s rigorous oversight of bridges, a huge backlog of structurally deficient bridges remains.  As of December 2012, bridges on the National Highway System (NHS) totaled 117,485, or about one-fifth of the 607,380 bridges inventoried nationwide.  Of those NHS bridges, 5,237, or 4.5 percent, were considered structurally deficient.  That represents a reduction of 1.4 percent from 2002, when 6,712 out of 114,544, or 5.9 percent, of NHS bridges inventoried were structurally deficient.

Over the past few years, the Department received hundreds of requests through the TIGER and TIFIA programs to repair or replace obsolete and deficient bridges, which resulted in 19 TIGER awards totaling more than $326 million.  For example, the Milton-Madison Bridge Replacement between Kentucky and Indiana restored an important link for the surrounding economically distressed communities that was estimated to have less than 10 years of serviceable life left.  Similarly, the Muldraugh Bridge Replacement replaced two deteriorating freight rail bridges that reached the end of their useful life.  In Washington, a $34 million TIGER award helped King County repair the South Park Bridge that was closed to traffic due to its rapidly deteriorating condition. 

Several other nationally significant bridges approached the TIFIA program for credit assistance to replace and rebuild failing bridges.  The New York Thruway Authority is currently negotiating for loan support to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge across the Hudson River. The Port of Long Beach is also looking to TIFIA to help reduce the cost of replacing the vital Gerald Desmond Bridge, which provides a critical freight connection to the Port.  These projects will help repair a few of the Nation’s significant bridges, but there is far more demand for investment than we have funds available.

INFRASTRUCTURE DEBATE

The I-5 Bridge collapse has spurred debate about the state of American transportation infrastructure.  To me, the fundamental question is not so much whether our transportation infrastructure is crumbling and even collapsing, which fortunately only happens in fairly rare circumstances. 

Rather, what is the right level of public investment in our Nation’s transportation system to ensure continued safety, foster economic growth, and increase mobility choices for our citizens and businesses?  And how can we at the Federal, State and local level ensure that we are building, maintaining and operating the system as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible?

At USDOT, we are very focused on the looming funding crisis for our surface transportation programs and on how we can wring more productivity and efficiency out of our existing system and continue to improve its performance.

We are grateful that Congress passed MAP-21 last summer.  After ten extensions of the previous law, MAP-21 provided two welcome years of stable funding -- $105 billion -- for our highway, transit and safety programs and a lot of good programmatic and policy reforms.

We consider MAP-21’s focus on performance one of the most exciting and challenging parts of the legislation.  We are working with our stakeholders to develop performance measures in key areas such as safety, pavement and bridge condition, system performance, congestion and freight.  Setting performance measures will help decision-makers and the public identify cost-effective policies and investments needed to maintain and improve the national transportation system.  

MAP-21 also focused on accelerating project delivery and built upon the work that my colleague Administrator Mendez has led at FHWA with his Every Day Counts initiative.  Every Day Counts was designed to further increase innovation and improve efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in the planning, design, engineering, construction and financing of transportation projects. 

For example, Every Day Counts has promoted the greater use of technologies—like assembling bridges from prefabricated elements as is being done to rebuild the I-5 Bridge— that allow critical infrastructure to be built faster, for less money, and with much less disruption to the traveling public and businesses and less impact on the environment. 

We are working with our sister agencies to reduce the Federal permitting review process timeline for project sponsors, generating tremendous savings of time and money. We are also implementing the President’s directive to cut aggregate timelines for major infrastructure projects in half, while also improving outcomes for communities and the environment. We are likewise encouraging cost-effective innovation and creative new approaches to construction, operations and project delivery.

Thanks in large part to the TIGER discretionary grant program that this Subcommittee has created and supported, and now MAP-21, DOT has greatly stepped up its efforts to work with States and localities to produce better economic analysis, including expanded use of asset management, to ensure that every public dollar is well spent.

Repairing our existing infrastructure is a central component of President Obama’s “Fix-It-First” program in the Fiscal Year 2014 budget proposal, which would direct $40 billion toward reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance on highways, bridges, transit systems, and airports nationwide and put U.S. workers on the job, along with $10 billion for innovative transportation investments. 

The President also proposed a Partnership to Rebuild America to attract private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most: efficient roads, rails, mass transit systems, waterways, and ports to move people and goods, and safe and modern energy and telecommunications systems.

Meeting Future Demand And Funding Sustainable Investment

But as this Committee knows, MAP-21 is only a two-year authorization, instead of the traditional six-year authorization, because that was all the funding available. 

By the end of 2014, the Highway Trust Fund will be nearly depleted and Congress will have transferred nearly $54 billion in General taxpayer Funds into the Highway Trust Fund to keep the program afloat.  We will need an additional $85 billion in General Funds over the next six years just to keep the program at current levels, let alone grow it.  This is clearly fiscally and politically unsustainable.

Meanwhile the demands on our nation’s transportation infrastructure will only increase. By 2050, the U.S. population is expected to grow by 100 million people, with many of them projected to live in already congested metropolitan areas.

In this time of severe budgetary challenges, ultimately we need to find political consensus on how to sustainably fund surface transportation over the long term.  It will not be easy.

The President has proposed using the savings from the military drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan as a source of funding for transportation, and supports programs such as TIFIA, TIGER and an infrastructure bank that would help leverage additional public and private funds for transportation. 

Others may have different proposals, and many States, including Virginia, Maryland, Wyoming, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania have recently achieved political consensus on new funding for critical transportation infrastructure. 

I know this is one of the many important issues that the leaders on this Committee and throughout Congress will be grappling with in the months to come.  The Administration looks forward to seeking a shared solution to sustainably fund surface transportation so that we can maintain our economic competitiveness and States and localities can plan for and build long-term projects. 

Senator Murray, I commend your leadership on addressing our transportation challenges. I thank you and this Subcommittee for your FY14 budget proposal, which seeks to provide the necessary resources to build and maintain our Nation’s transportation system. 

The President has called on us to create an America built to last. We have a long way to go to upgrade our nation's highways, bridges, and transit systems, but we owe it to future generations to make it happen. 

Thank you, and Administrator Mendez and I are happy to answer any questions you may have.