STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE ANTHONY FOXX
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
U.S. SENATE

HEARING ON

Oversight Hearing on Implementation of Map-21’s TIFIA Program Enhancements

July 24, 2013

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter, Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to talk about the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit program.

The TIFIA program provides low-cost Federal credit assistance for surface transportation projects across the country.  Created as part of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21) in 1998, the TIFIA program was designed to help State and local governments that sought to finance large-scale transportation projects with new innovative sources of revenue.  Prior to TIFIA, public sponsors often had difficulty obtaining loans at reasonable rates and attracting private financial investment due to the uncertainties associated with funding and financing these complex projects.  

Today, the TIFIA program’s flexible terms and low interest rates make it possible to obtain financing for critical projects that otherwise would have been delayed or deferred because of their size and complexity.  This includes the loan for the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project in Riverside, California.  At the beginning of this month we provided a $421 million loan to this $1.3 billion project which is expected to reduce traffic delays and create more than 16,000 new jobs.  Another example of a TIFIA project is the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Capital Improvement Program, which was the first agreement added to the TIFIA portfolio and is now successfully retired.  TIFIA provided a $600 million loan guarantee in 1999 giving WMATA access to the capital markets at a low cost and allowing the agency to undertake a $2.3 billion program of projects to rehabilitate its bus and rail system.    These projects are examples of the investment in critical transportation infrastructure that TIFIA credit assistance makes possible – projects that stimulate the economy and create thousands of U.S. jobs. 

TIFIA is a truly multimodal program.  Many large-scale, surface transportation projects, including highway, transit, railroad, intermodal freight, and port access projects, are eligible for assistance.  Increasingly, we are seeing a broad interest in TIFIA from innovative and multimodal projects and projects with non-traditional sponsors.  We are also pleased that projects in more and more states are interested in TIFIA assistance.  This year alone we have closed TIFIA loans for projects in two new States – Washington and Illinois – and we have pending projects from several other new states, including Delaware and Kentucky, that we expect to close in the upcoming fiscal year.  And the TIFIA program continues to facilitate the introduction of private capital to infrastructure by providing subordinate debt and playing an important role in the financing plan for transportation projects advanced as public-private partnerships.  In this way, the TIFIA program is fulfilling its fundamental goal: to leverage Federal funds by attracting substantial private and other non-Federal co-investment in critical improvements to the nation's surface transportation system.   

Our ability to leverage Federal resources through TIFIA credit assistance is a powerful tool, and one that you recognized when authorizing a significant expansion of the program under Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21^st Century Act (MAP-21), increasing TIFIA’s funding level more than eightfold – from $122 million per year to $1 billion per year in fiscal year (FY) 2014.   We estimate that TIFIA’s leverage ratio is more than 30:1, meaning that one dollar of TIFIA budget authority supports over $30 of infrastructure investment.   At the MAP-21 funding level, the TIFIA program could stimulate as much as $30 billion or more in infrastructure inestment in FY 2014 alone. 

Furthermore, the expanded TIFIA program will allow us to meet the overwhelming demand for TIFIA credit assistance.  As you know, in each of the last three years, we have received $12 billion to $15 billion in requests for TIFIA assistance.  So far this year, the Department of Transportation (DOT) has received a record $15.8 billion in requests to finance 31 projects around the country.  Thanks to the strong, bipartisan support and leadership of Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter, and the rest of the Committee, we now have the resources to better meet the demand for TIFIA assistance. 

And DOT has moved forward quickly to make sure the funding you have authorized is used to support projects.  Since MAP-21 went into effect in October, we have committed more than $800 million of budget authority for 18 projects that submitted letters of interest.  At the same time, DOT continues to advance projects that the Department has invited to apply under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) towards financial close.  All told, there are 25 projects progressing in the TIFIA pipeline.  To put that in perspective, that’s about two-thirds the total number of projects that TIFIA has financed since 1999.  And we continue to advance new projects as they achieve major milestones, such as securing all project funding, achieving necessary state or local legislation, fully developing plans of finance, confirming final decisions on procurement methods, or completing environmental clearances.

With the significant expansion of TIFIA funding and the unprecedented number of projects in the TIFIA pipeline, we have needed to increase TIFIA staff resources to meet the demand from project sponsors.  I am pleased to report that we have made considerable progress on that front.  As of today, we have hired 10 new TIFIA employees under MAP-21 and created four distinct teams in the TIFIA office to cover all aspects of loan review, monitoring and budgeting.

As you are probably aware, the TIFIA Joint Program Office has received extensive support from the Federal Highway Administration executing the program.  In terms of leadership and oversight, DOT’s Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs has provided guidance and overall policy direction for the program.  The TIFIA program has operated successfully under this dual organizational structure, but we are making a change by repositioning the program within the Office of the Secretary.  This will create a more streamlined management approach for effectively implementing a TIFIA program that is increasingly receiving large and complex loan requests from multi-modal sponsors of highway, transit, and rail projects. 

My predecessor also recognized that TIFIA was a major component of MAP-21, and DOT made it a priority to roll out the newly expanded program.  One of the first things DOT did was to embark on an outreach campaign to introduce TIFIA stakeholders to the program and its new features.  DOT has developed and delivered a series of webinars about the TIFIA program over the last year.  We believe much of the new interest in TIFIA—especially from states we have not worked with before—can be attributed to these and other outreach efforts.

DOT is also working to keep stakeholders informed throughout DOT’s creditworthiness evaluation process, which is a rigorous, but highly efficient effort to ensure that project sponsors are likely to repay TIFIA loans and to protect taxpayers.  We post information about the program on the TIFIA website on a regular basis, and we have added new material such as a chart that outlines the TIFIA review and approval process and tracks the status of each MAP-21 TIFIA letter of interest (LOI). 

I would also like to highlight changes we have implemented in regard to the TIFIA review process.  Less than a month after the enactment of MAP-21, DOT published a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) in the Federal Register that invited project sponsors to submit LOIs for TIFIA assistance on a rolling basis.  The NOFA outlined how DOT redesigned the TIFIA review process to focus on MAP-21’s emphasis on creditworthiness.  The new, three-phase review process includes an initial screening of the LOI to ensure that the project has followed statutory and regulatory requirements and that it appears to be eligible.  The first phase includes an initial screening to, as early in the process as possible, identify major hurdles that might preclude our providing credit assistance, or potentially delay a project. We work with project sponsors to resolve any such issues and then move eligible projects into the second phase, a comprehensive credit evaluation.  Upon successful completion of the credit evaluation we will invite a formal application, negotiate terms, and, finally, execute the credit agreement.

The initiatives I have mentioned so far – expanding and reorganizing the TIFIA office, educating TIFIA stakeholders about the program, and revamping TIFIA’s review process to focus on creditworthiness and eligibility – are things DOT has undertaken to ensure that we are able to commit the funds that Congress has authorized for the program.  And while DOT is prepared to move expeditiously in advancing eligible projects, it is important to realize that the project sponsor determines the speed at which a project will move forward in the review process.  Project sponsors coming to TIFIA for assistance usually bring large and complex projects.  These undertakings require extensive coordination and integration of environmental review and procurement with DOT Modal Administrations, as well as financial and funding considerations.  Sometimes, for very good reasons, a sponsor will find that it is in the best interest of the project to put the TIFIA process on hold while they work through other project-related issues.  This is indeed the case with some of the projects that have sought TIFIA assistance since the passage of MAP-21.

I would also like to mention that the TIFIA review process can move very quickly if standard TIFIA terms are adopted.   However, in most cases, DOT has found that project sponsors want to pursue non-standard, more innovative terms for their loans.  While these terms can take additional time to negotiate to ensure we are protecting the Federal government and sharing the risks with other investors and stakeholders, we are pleased to work with sponsors to best meet the needs of their projects.

We are committed to advancing critical projects and stimulating infrastructure investment, and equally committed to provide TIFIA funding in a responsible and prudent manner that protects the taxpayers’ investment. To that end, DOT provides strong oversight of the program.  One of the most important things we have in place at DOT is the Credit Council, chaired by Deputy Secretary Porcari and made up of the Modal Administrators and senior leadership throughout the Office of the Secretary.  The Credit Council provides guidance on policy and lending standards and reviews all requests for TIFIA assistance before making a recommendation to me about approving a loan.  Under the Obama Administration, the DOT Credit Council has strengthened its focus on creditworthiness requirements, incorporating lessons from the financial crisis and recent economic downturn and ensuring that projects are not overleveraged or financed based on overly optimistic assumptions about revenue performance. 

The TIFIA program has been a highly successful way to leverage Federal resources to stimulate infrastructure investment throughout the U.S.  To date, the program has extended more than $11 billion in credit assistance to support almost $44 billion in highway, bridge, rail, and bus projects.  This year we expect to obligate TIFIA funds for seven or more projects – a record number – and FY 2014 promises to be even busier. 

Overall, I believe that the changes made to TIFIA will cement the program’s great track record and position TIFIA to provide an increased level of support to critical projects around the U.S., stimulating the economy and creating American jobs.  I can assure you that effective oversight of the program is a top priority for me and I look forward to working with you to ensure the program’s success for many years in the future.

Thank you again for this opportunity to meet with you. I will be happy to answer any questions.

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE ANNE S. FERRO,
ADMINISTRATOR

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

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

IMPLEMENTING MAP-21: PROGRESS REPORT FROM
U.S. DOT MODAL ADMINISTRATORS

MARCH 14, 2013

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member DeFazio, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) progress in implementing the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21^st Century Act (MAP-21).  MAP-21 provides the Agency with important new tools to improve commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety and remove unsafe operators from our roads.

Safety is FMCSA’s number one priority and while the Agency has realized great success in reducing crashes, injuries, and fatalities, there is more to be done.  Every life is precious and even one fatality is one too many.  To direct how we will use our resources to achieve greater success in saving lives, the Agency developed a Strategic Plan guided by a framework shaped by three core principles to: raise the bar to enter the motor carrier industry; maintain high safety standards to remain in the industry; and remove high-risk carriers, drivers, and service providers from operation.  MAP-21 aligns well with these core principles and supports a number of our Agency’s important safety initiatives.

Already, the Agency has started taking advantage of a number of MAP-21 provisions.  Just two weeks ago, for example, FMCSA used the new authority granted under section 32110 of MAP-21 to revoke the operating authority of a passenger carrier that had refused to produce its safety records during the course of a safety investigation.  Other examples of FMCSA’s steps to implement MAP-21 include revising our agreements with States to reflect the changes to the Agency’s CMV safety grants, increasing enforcement penalties for unsafe property carriers, and clarifying the application of certain CMV rules on the agricultural community.  The Agency is also developing two new rules to codify a number of similar provisions in MAP-21.  As we continue to implement the CMV safety provisions of this Act, I would like to focus my testimony on a few of MAP-21’s key provisions.

Agricultural Exemptions

MAP–21 includes two provisions applicable to the operation of CMVs for agricultural purposes. The first provides a statutory exemption from the Federal hours-of-service (HOS) rules for certain CMV drivers engaged in the transportation of agricultural commodities and farm supplies.  The second provides a statutory exemption from most of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), including those pertaining to commercial driver’s licenses (CDL) and driver physical qualifications (medical) requirements, for the operation of covered farm vehicles by farm and ranch operators, their employees, and certain other specified individuals under specific circumstances.  These statutory provisions are self-executing and took effect on October 1, 2012.

In order to notify the public of these provisions, the Agency published a notice in the Federal Register last October, alerting motor carriers and enforcement officials about these exemptions.  Additionally, the Agency worked with the U. S. Department of Agriculture to make the agricultural community aware of these provisions.  As we speak, FMCSA is developing a final rule to conform the FMCSRs to the statutory provisions in MAP-21.

While these statutory amendments do not, in and of themselves, require any actions by the States, FMCSA has requested that States take immediate action to put policies and procedures in place to provide this regulatory relief.  Once the Agency completes a final rule to conform the FMCSRs to these provisions, States will be required to adopt and enforce compatible safety regulations as a condition of receiving Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program funding.  States will have three years from the rule’s effective date to adopt compatible regulations.

Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse

MAP-21 provides explicit authority for the Secretary to create an electronic repository for positive alcohol and controlled substances test results. This new Clearinghouse will improve both driver and employer compliance with DOT’s alcohol and controlled substance testing program, providing employers with important information about drivers before they hire them.

The Agency is developing a rulemaking that would require employers of CDL holders and service agents to report positive test results and refusals to test to the Clearinghouse.  Prospective employers, acting on a CDL driver’s application and with his or her written consent, would query the Clearinghouse for information about the driver prior to hiring the applicant to drive CMVs.

Compliance, Safety, Accountability

Compliance, Safety, Accountability, or CSA is FMCSA's compliance model to improve CMV safety and ultimately reduce large truck and bus crashes, injuries, and fatalities on our nation's highways.  CSA enables the Agency to identify high risk motor carriers and achieve improved levels of compliance with Federal commercial motor vehicle safety and hazardous materials regulations. Additionally, through increased operational efficiencies, CSA is enabling FMCSA and its State safety enforcement partners to identify and address compliance and safety deficiencies of a larger segment of the motor carrier industry than we did previously with less interruption to motor carriers' business operations.  Developed with an unprecedented level of stakeholder input, analysis, and planning, the Agency recently implemented enhancements to our Safety Measurement System (SMS) that reflect input collected from the comments of more than 19,000 carriers and 2,900 law enforcement personnel.

MAP-21 includes a number of statutory revisions and additional authorities needed to bring CSA to fruition.  For example, MAP-21 provides the Agency with flexibility to allow an investigator’s credentials to be displayed in writing rather than in person.  This will allow FMCSA and its investigators – with clear statutory authority to conduct enforcement interventions – to formally demand that a motor carrier provide records without having to travel to the motor carrier’s business location. This is vital to expanding FMCSA’s and our State partners’ enforcement repertoire to include off-site reviews and investigations and will increase the number of reviews that we conduct.

Electronic Logging Devices

MAP-21 included a provision mandating the use of electronic logging devices (ELD) for any driver regulated by the HOS regulations.  Currently, the Agency is preparing a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) that would establish the following:  (1) minimum performance standards for ELDs; (2) mandatory requirements for use of the devices by drivers required to prepare handwritten records of duty status (RODS); (3) requirements concerning HOS supporting documents; and (4) measures to ensure that the mandatory use of ELDs will not result in harassment of drivers by motor carriers and enforcement officials. This rulemaking supplements the Agency´s 2011 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and addresses issues raised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court in its 2011 decision vacating the Agency´s 2010 final rule concerning ELDs. The ELD requirements will improve HOS compliance, thereby decreasing the risk of fatigue-related crashes attributable to HOS non-compliance. 

In 2012, FMCSA held two public listening sessions to solicit information, ideas and comments on ELDs and the issue of driver harassment. Specifically, the Agency sought public comment on what factors, issues, and data it should consider as it addresses the distinction between productivity and harassment.  These listening sessions were held March 23, 2012, at the Mid-America Trucking Show in Louisville, Kentucky; and on April 26, 2012, at the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance meeting in Bellevue, Washington.

Registration Requirements

MAP-21 helps the Agency crack down on carriers that commit safety violations and then change their corporate identity slightly, or “reincarnate”, so that they can either continue operating after being placed out of service, avoid paying civil penalties, or otherwise avoid the regulatory consequences of poor safety performance.  This growing and disturbing practice poses a real enforcement challenge to FMCSA’s investigators and to commercial law enforcement officers nationwide.

MAP-21 expressly authorizes the Secretary to withhold, suspend, amend or revoke a motor carrier’s registration if the carrier fails to disclose its adverse safety history or other material facts on its application or if the applicant is a successor or closely related to another company with a poor compliance history within the preceding 3 years.  MAP-21 also authorizes the Secretary to withhold, suspend, amend, or revoke the registration of a motor carrier, employer, owner or operator if the Secretary determines that there is a failure to disclose any relationship involving common ownership, management, control, or familial relationship to any other motor carrier, employer, or owner operator. 

MAP-21 grants the Secretary new authority to deny operational licenses to private motor carriers and express authority to refuse to issue the USDOT number if the applicant company is, or was, a close affiliate or successor to a motor carrier that is not or was not fit, willing, and able to comply with the regulations. The registration provision will require motor carriers to update their registrations within 30 days of a change of certain essential information, as well as quarterly for the first two years of operation for a motorcoach operator. The Agency plans to implement this provision as part of an omnibus rulemaking that will capture a number of self-executing MAP-21 provisions.

Finally, MAP-21 directs the Agency to establish a written proficiency examination for all new applicants to test their knowledge of the safety regulations, applicable commercial regulations, and regulations relating to accessibility for disabled persons.  This provision will improve familiarity with these regulations before beginning operations.  The Agency has begun work on implementing this provision.

Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators

MAP-21 directs the Agency to complete its proposed rule to require behind-the-wheel and classroom training for persons who must hold a CDL to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. The Agency’s rulemaking will consider the effectiveness of CMV driver training in reducing crashes, the appropriate types and levels of training, and related costs. On January 7, 2013, FMCSA held a public listening session at the American Bus Association annual Marketplace in Charlotte, NC, to hear comments on this proposed rule.  The Agency will hold a second listening session on entry-level driver training next week, on March 22, at the Mid-America Trucking Show in Louisville, KY.

National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners

In April 2012, FMCSA issued a final rule as required by a previous statutory requirement, reaffirmed and modified in MAP-21, to establish a National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners (National Registry).  The National Registry will improve highway safety and driver health by requiring that medical examiners be trained and certified so they can determine effectively whether a CMV driver is medically fit under FMCSA’s standards.  The National Registry will require that all medical examiners who conduct physical examinations for interstate CMV drivers meet the following criteria: (1) complete certain training concerning FMCSA’s physical qualification standards; (2) pass a test to verify an understanding of those standards; and (3) maintain and demonstrate competence through periodic training and testing.  Once the National Registry is fully implemented by May, 2014, FMCSA will require that motor carriers and drivers use only those medical examiners listed on the National Registry and will only accept as valid medical examiner’s certificates issued by medical examiners listed on the National Registry. 

Household Goods Provisions

With regard to household goods transportation, MAP-21 authorizes FMCSA to assign all or a portion of the penalties it receives from noncompliant moving companies to the aggrieved shipper. The Agency has formed a working group and is examining how to implement this new restitution authority. A second provision authorizes the Agency to be able to order moving companies to return household goods held hostage.  The Agency has implemented the provision and has already ordered a noncompliant moving company to return hostage goods to an aggrieved shipper. 

Conclusion

As you can see, FMCSA is working hard to implement MAP-21.  These provisions will enhance our enforcement efforts and program delivery capabilities.  Mr. Chairman, we look forward to continuing our close work with your Subcommittee in our efforts to improve safety, reduce crashes, and save lives on our Nation’s highways.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss FMCSA’s implementation of MAP-21. I would gladly answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF

DORENDA BAKER,
DIRECTOR OF THE AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION SERVICE
AND JOHN S. DUNCAN,
DIRECTOR OF THE FLIGHT STANDARDS SERVICE,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTTEE ON AVIATION, ON

THE REVIEW OF FAA’S CERTIFICATION PROCESS: ENSURING AN EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE, AND SAFE PROCESS,

OCTOBER 30, 2013.

Chairman LoBiondo, Congressman Larsen, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) certification processes.  I am Dorenda Baker, the Director of the Aircraft Certification Service (AIR), and with me today is John Duncan, the Director of the Flight Standards Service (AFS).  This is our first time formally appearing before this subcommittee and we look forward to informing you of the ongoing work for which our organizations are responsible.  We share the view of this subcommittee that, in order to support the safest, largest, most complex aviation system in the world, FAA must continue to strive to make our processes as efficient and effective as possible, while also maintaining high standards of safety.

FAA Aircraft Certification Processes

First, I would like to recognize that we expect the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013 to be passed by Congress quite shortly.  This legislation is intended to support the manufacturers of, primarily, general aviation airplanes and components by requiring FAA to reorganize and streamline our regulations to improve the certification process applicable to small airplanes.  We believe that transforming part 23 into requirements that are based on airplane complexity and performance will provide for streamlined approval of safety advancements, which will improve safety and reduce the regulatory cost burden for both the FAA and industry.  This approach is expected to advance the safety of general aviation by spurring innovation and adoption of technical advancements.  AIR agrees completely that this undertaking is worthwhile.  Last month, the FAA formally approved the rulemaking project to revise part 23 (the certification regulations applying to small airplanes), giving it the priority and necessary resources.  We believe this project is essential to supporting the vitality of the general aviation community, which is an important foundation for all aviation-related operations and products in our industry.  This is a priority of my organization and I am personally committed to seeing that the rework of part 23 is successful.

FAA certifies aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers and articles.  We set standards to which an applicant must conform.  Some version of our certification processes have been in place for over 50 years, but our regulations and policies have evolved in order to adapt to an ever-changing industry that uses global partnerships to develop new, more efficient and safer aviation products and technologies. 

The FAA uses a risk based approach to improving aviation safety by focusing resources and efforts on those areas that have the highest risk.  AIR continues to develop procedures and tools under this philosophy.  The applicant is required to develop the plans and specifications and perform the inspections and tests necessary to establish that the design of an aircraft or article complies with the regulations.  The FAA is responsible for determining that the applicant has shown that the design meets the required standards.  Using our risk based approach, we focus our resources on areas of highest risk while leveraging our delegation system to focus on other areas.

FAA encourages applicants that want to apply for a type certificate to work with the FAA well in advance of presenting a formal application in order to both familiarize the applicant with the applicable certification requirements and familiarize FAA with the proposed design.  Once the certification basis is established for the proposed design, the FAA and the applicant develop and agree to a certification plan.   In order to receive a type certificate, the applicant must show that the product is compliant with existing standards and any special conditions for novel or unusual design features. This is accomplished through detailed airplane-level analysis, lab tests, and flight tests, all of which are subject to FAA oversight.  If the FAA finds that a proposed new type of aircraft, engine or propeller (product) complies with safety standards, it issues a type certificate. 

AIR monitors the production and continued operational safety of all the products it certifies for the life of those products.  In that respect, we are responsible for an ever expanding range of products.  Effectively managing the safe oversight of the largest fleet of aircraft in the world, while continuing to support the innovation of new products and technologies is a challenge, but one that we recognize is vital to the economic growth of our country.

Flight Standards Certification Processes

Once the aircraft is certified and introduced into service, it is the responsibility of AFS to set the standards for the people and organizations who operate and maintain them.  AFS sets standards for pilots, mechanics, airlines, repair stations and training schools. 

Airmen certification standards are set at differing levels of privilege.  For pilots, they range from student pilot, for those with the least experience, to airline transport pilot, for the most accomplished pilots in the system.  In addition to pilot certificates, other airmen certificates include anyone who can impact operational safety in the system, from instructors and mechanics, to parachute riggers and flight attendants.

Individuals who hold FAA certificates must demonstrate proficiency for the type of certificate that they are applying for and hold.  This is usually done through some type of training with a certified instructor, some number of hours logged doing the activity authorized by the certificate, and passing a practical test that includes both an oral and demonstration of proficiency component. 

For operators, such as part 121 air carriers, the FAA uses a comprehensive certification process to determine whether an applicant is able to conduct business in a manner that complies with all applicable regulations and safety standards and allows the entity to manage the hazard-related risks in its operating systems and environment.  The FAA’s initial certification process assures that the operator’s processes, programs, systems, and intended methods of compliance are thoroughly reviewed, evaluated, and tested.  The certification process provides the traveling public confidence that the air carrier’s infrastructure, including its programs, methods and systems, results in continued compliance and provides it with the ability to manage hazard related risks in the specific operating systems and environment.  The certificate holder must provide service at a high degree of safety in the public interest.

As is the case with aircraft certification, AFS must monitor the continued operational safety of its certificate holders.  As in other areas of the agency, this monitoring is based on risk identified by information FAA is continually obtaining through its oversight activities.  Any action that has the potential for impacting a certificate holder, such as a merger or bankruptcy, triggers additional scrutiny to ensure compliance with FAA standards. 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

In February of 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.  The law contained two provisions that required the FAA to work with industry representatives to review and reform the aircraft certification process and standardize the FAA’s regulatory interpretations (sections 312 and 313 respectively).  Both sections required FAA to issue reports to Congress on the recommendations reached as a result of these Congressional directives.  On August 13, 2012, FAA delivered the report pursuant to section 312.  On July 19, 2013, FAA delivered its initial report on section 313.  Both AIR and AFS are working internally and with industry on implementation of the recommendations contained in these reports.

Section 312

In response to section 312, the FAA and industry representatives met to develop consensus recommendations to review and reform the aircraft certification process, with the goal of reducing the time and cost of certification without compromising FAA safety standards.  The group developed six recommendations.  The recommendations were mapped to 14 FAA initiatives.  The process is extremely transparent.  FAA meets regularly with industry representatives to update them on the status of the initiatives and posts the status on the FAA website every six months. 

The recommendations encourage FAA to more thoroughly utilize its delegation authority in several areas to better utilize FAA resources.  Some of the changes required to implement the recommendations are long term in nature or require coordination with other agencies.  Consequently, while initial steps have been taken to initiate implementation of the recommendations, such as the establishment of an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), or a pilot program, full implementation, in most cases, will take several years.  In addition, in order to determine if the agency actions are achieving the goals of the initiatives, metrics must be developed and agreed to.  We are currently working with industry on those metrics. 

Since the original release of the Implementation Plan on January 7, 2013, the FAA has made progress on all of the initiatives.  To give you an idea of some of the foundational steps we have taken toward implementation of the recommendations, last August the FAA entered into a two year pilot program to expand delegation of noise findings to an organizational designation office (ODA).  This will give the industry more flexibility in its planning of certification activities. This is an endeavor FAA has been working on for several years and required the assistance of FAA’s Office of Environment and Energy and the agreement of the Environmental Protection Agency.  We are hopeful the information generated by the pilot program will support the expansion of delegation in this area.

In addition, the FAA established an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to update part 21 Certification Procedures for Products and Parts.  The kickoff meeting was held last November with a goal of updating the regulations to reflect a systems safety approach to product certification processes and oversight of the design organizations.

Another area of importance to industry that was addressed in the report on section 312 is FAA’s system for sequencing its certification projects.  FAA put its system into place in 2005 and, while industry understood the need to prioritize work within the agency, it was critical of the inability to predict when a project would be initiated under this system.  The FAA requested comments from the public on the original process in October of 2012.  The public comments were assessed and a revised process was published for public comment in April 2013.  Those comments have now been reviewed and a revised process has been developed to address industry concerns.  FAA expects to begin to transition to the new process in 2014.

Finally, as part of FAA’s ODA Action Plan, FAA published an order that included a number of enhancements requested by industry to increase the efficiency of ODA certification processes and improve the utilization of ODA authority.  The order provides for better communication between FAA and ODA holders, as well as more flexibility for the ODA.  Greater flexibility translates into the ODA having more control over its projects timelines.  The effectiveness of the changes made in the order will be evaluated with industry in the first quarter of calendar year 2014.

Section 313

In response to section 313, the FAA reviewed and accepted the Consistency of Regulatory Interpretation Aviation Rulemaking (CRI ARC) recommendations.  The recommendations were reviewed by multiple FAA policy divisions, and we developed a preliminary implementation plan that was included in the FAA Report to Congress on the Consistency of Regulatory Interpretation.  The FAA has since developed and begun executing a detailed implementation plan to address the root causes identified by the ARC, including the need for clear regulatory requirements, standardized regulatory application training, and a change in the enforcement-based culture.

The Director of the FAA Flight Standards Service and the Director of the FAA Aircraft Certification Service participated actively with the industry stakeholders in developing six recommendations to improve upon issues of consistency in regulatory interpretation by offices within each service organization, as well as between Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification.  We worked to address these concerns strategically through careful and systemic long-term improvements that will have lasting impact, as well as meaningful metrics that can be tracked internally and by industry.  We noted that multiple recommendations are being addressed by current initiatives to change cultural norms within, and improve training for, the Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification workforce.  The FAA also wanted to ensure that implementation of the recommendations is consistent with the safety management system framework used to assess and mitigate risk without compromising safety.

It became clear that long-term planning and culture change would be essential to affect the improvements sought by industry. In order to address the recommendations as soon as practical, the detailed implementation plan identifies near-, mid-, and long-term priorities related to each recommendation.

The near-term strategy addresses the foundational concepts in the recommendations that allow the FAA to use existing processes.  For example, we were able to address and close the recommendation asking the FAA to improve its rulemaking procedures and guidance to ensure each proposed and final rule preamble contain a comprehensive explanation of the purpose, technical requirements, and intent of the rule. The Office of Rulemaking was able to address this recommendation by reviewing existing training requirements for rulemaking team members, as well as making improvements to existing processes. 

The primary area of importance identified by industry was a standardized methodology whereby all FAA guidance documents, including legal interpretations and Chief Counsel opinions, are linked to a specific regulation.  The FAA is currently reviewing existing IT systems to determine how best to achieve this goal.  As one of its near-term strategies for implementation, we are reviewing existing guidance documents used by FAA personnel that are not catalogued in one of the electronic databases.  By the end of the year, we expect to identify all such documents and establish a protocol to determine if such documents are still applicable, in which case they will be integrated into one of our existing electronic systems.  In the alternative, we will issue guidance to all personnel that any such documents not otherwise integrated into one of the electronic systems are cancelled.  This process will address a significant concern on the part of industry involving ad hoc usage of guidance documents issued to address a specific and narrow set of circumstances. 

Since the FAA concurs that a change in culture is the primary component of successful implementation of the recommendations, we have begun the process of reviewing and improving FAA workforce training.  We started our evaluation with training for FAA personnel responsible for promulgating guidance material to ensure that all guidance is clearly linked to the underlying regulation and a standardized methodology is used to develop guidance documents.  We will then review current FAA workforce training for personnel responsible for regulatory application.

The FAA met with industry representatives to review the implementation plan.  We expect to complete the near-term priorities by the end of this year.  The FAA agrees with industry stakeholders that a more standardized methodology for regulatory application at the national, regional, and field levels of Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification is necessary.  We expect to continue a dialogue with industry stakeholders and evaluate the implementation plan on an ongoing basis as we work toward implementation of the feasible long-term priorities by 2015.

Conclusion

As the reports we have submitted and this testimony indicates, the FAA is underway in addressing the concerns identified as a result of the provisions in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.  Our efforts are transparent and are being done with the support of industry.  The reports have clarified a path forward for the FAA to meet the ongoing and future demand of a dynamic industry that is crucial to the economic interests of all Americans.  We are cognizant of the importance of our efforts and we look forward to working with industry and this subcommittee as we strive to achieve the goals that have been set for us.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement.  Mr. Duncan and I will be happy to answer any questions you have at this time.

STATEMENT OF

JOHN ALLEN,
DIRECTOR OF FLIGHT STANDARDS SERVICE,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, ON 

THE INCLUSION OF BIOMETRIC IDENTIFIERS ON GOVERNMENT ID CARDS,

June 19, 2013.

Chairman Mica, Congressman Connolly, Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on the issue of incorporating biometric data into pilot certificates.  I know this issue has been of significant interest to Chairman Mica.  The FAA previously appeared before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on this issue under Chairman Mica’s leadership in 2011. 

The FAA has responsibility for issuance of 23 different types of airman certificates.  In addition to pilot certificates, these include certificates for mechanics, dispatchers, parachute riggers, and air traffic controllers.  The agency also issues certificates to flight attendants.  There are approximately 837,000 active pilot certificate holders.

Historically, the primary function of a pilot certificate was simply to document that its holder meets the aeronautical knowledge and experience standards established for both the certificate level and any associated ratings. 

Even before the September 11 terrorist attacks, the FAA was responding to law enforcement interest in enhancing the security of airman certificates.  Pursuant to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Act of 1988, for example, the agency began the process of phasing out paper certificates and replacing them with plastic.  Since April 2010, all pilots have been required to have the new plastic certificates.  Holders of the remaining airman certificate types – that is, navigators, mechanics, dispatchers, etc. – were required to have a security-enhanced plastic certificate by March 31, 2013.  As of March 31, all airman certificate holders, including pilots, have plastic certificates that incorporate tamper- and counterfeit-resistant features. These include micro printing, a hologram, and a UV-sensitive layer.

As you know, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) that the Congress passed in 2004 requires additional security measures for pilot certificates.  Specifically, the IRTPA directed the FAA to develop tamper-resistant pilot certificates that include a photograph of the pilot and are capable of accommodating a digital photograph, a biometric identifier, or any other unique identifier the FAA Administrator considers necessary. 

The FAA had already met some of these requirements when it began issuing tamper- and counterfeit-resistant certificates in 2003.  To address the remaining requirements, the FAA was required to initiate a rulemaking.  Before I discuss the rulemaking effort, let me note that the FAA chose to use a digital photo as the method of complying with IRTPA. However, we are working closely with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) on measures that will provide additional security enhancements not only to pilot certificates, but also to other types of airman certificates. 

The FAA has also taken other steps to meet law enforcement concerns. Since 2002, the FAA has required pilots to carry a valid Government issued photo ID as well as a pilot certificate in order to exercise the privileges associated with the certificate.  This allows an FAA inspector or a fixed-base operator that rents airplanes to confirm both the individual’s identity and his or her pilot credentials.

In response to IRPTA, the FAA initiated a rulemaking to require digital photographs to appear on pilot certificates.  While the agency was reviewing the hundreds of comments received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 became law.  Section 321 of that Act requires that pilot certificates not only contain photographs, but also be smart cards that can accommodate iris and fingerprint biometric identifiers and are compliant with FIPS-201 or Personal Identity Verification-Interoperability Standards (PIV-I) for processing through security checkpoints into airport sterile areas.  The FAA’s NPRM did not contemplate those additional features.

Because the requirements of Section 321 were not within the scope of the previous NPRM, the agency was required to initiate another rulemaking in order to comply with congressional directives.  The rulemaking process requires the FAA to propose requirements for an applicant to obtain and use an improved pilot certificate, analyze the costs and benefits of those requirements, consider public comments to the proposal, and issue final requirements.  In accordance with this process, the FAA is developing a notice of proposed rulemaking to issue smart card pilot certificates that can accommodate a photograph and other biometric data. 

The cost of this transition has not yet been determined, but analysis of the costs and benefits of various alternatives to meet the statutory mandate is underway.

To justify imposing a new cost on pilots, we must carefully consider the benefits of improved pilot certificates.  If pilot certificates with embedded biometrics are intended to permit airport access or increase security, we must coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the TSA, which develop standards for airport access and security. 

There are also implications for multiple government agencies. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is in the process of a rulemaking that will establish standards to enable the use of iris biometric data, but has not yet established this standard.  That impacts the FAA, since the agency seeks to avoid duplicating, interfering with, or superseding efforts by other federal agencies with respect to standards or implementation. To address and coordinate these issues, and to evaluate quantifiable benefits regarding how this technology might advance each agency’s mission, the FAA is participating in an interagency working group that includes DHS through the TSA, as well as NIST.  In addition to avoiding duplication or conflicting standards that would impose an undue burden on pilots, the working group seeks to learn from best practices in other agencies. One such example is the DHS Global Online Enrollment System (GOES) for managing the U.S. government’s trusted traveler programs.

It is therefore essential to identify and quantify the benefits of biometric enhancements as we move forward.

Understanding how to maximize the use of biometric data to ensure the security of the pilot community, to enhance overall aviation security in a way that does not create duplication or impose an undue burden, and to craft a rule that can meet the statutory mandates, while accommodating rapidly evolving technologies.  It will also require a government working group (through FAA’s Aviation Rulemaking Committee process) to coordinate with airlines, industry trade associations, and organizations representing individual pilots. 

We are working hard to accomplish the goals outlined by Congress.  In consultation with other agencies, the FAA is in the final stages of preparing a report to Congress. We believe this report will assist Congress in assessing the future use and inclusion of biometric data in pilot certificates. We look forward to working with you, and in collaboration with other agencies, as our efforts progress. 

This concludes my prepared remarks.  I will be happy to take questions at this time.

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE ANTHONY FOXX
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING, AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 12, 2014

Introduction

Chairman Latham, Ranking Member Pastor, and Members of the Subcommittee thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss the President’s FY 2015 Budget request for the U.S. Department of Transportation.   I know all of you share President Obama’s and my commitment to ensuring our Nation’s transportation networks continue to provide all American’s with safe and reliable transportation service.

America’s transportation infrastructure is a National asset we all share-- and it needs our attention.  For many years our leaders have invested in providing, maintaining, and improving transportation networks to meet the needs of our citizens and businesses. It is because of these investments that we have reliable transportation today.  But increasingly, our investments are not keeping pace with the needs.  Today, we have 100,000 bridges in our country that are old enough for Medicare and a Highway Trust Fund that is running dry.

As we consider the state of transportation today, we have two important responsibilities we must address.  First, we have to look forward to take charge of transportation decisions that impact our country’s future. As America continues to grow, we need to ensure that transportation choices are poised to meet the new demands that result from expanding Regions and emerging cities.  This is about so much more than just making travelling easier.  It is about providing access to new job and educational opportunities that open new doors and provide a better quality of life for our citizens.  It is about supporting a growing business network that helps keep local economies strong and provides consumers with expanded choices.  It’s about making our cities and communities places where we all want to be – with easy access to the day-to-day services we all need as well as providing for leisure and other enriching experiences that we all value.

At the same time, we need to acknowledge that in far too many cases, our current transportation systems have not been maintained to optimal standards and as a result, are not operating in a state of good repair. This neglect is costly and results in inefficiencies and inconvenience to travelers every day.  Based on the Department’s Conditions and Performance Report, for Transit alone the maintenance backlog for transit systems in our country totals $86 billion and that is growing by an additional $2.5 billion each year. It is important to note that these aren’t just Federal dollars, but, nonetheless, our metrics demonstrate a huge gap between needs and current investment levels.

The President’s Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Proposal

But it doesn’t have to be this way.  The President has laid out his vision for a four- year $302 billion surface transportation reauthorization proposal to modernize the country’s infrastructure, address our infrastructure deficit, and better connect people to their jobs, schools, and communities every day.

There are several key elements of this proposal that separate it from its predecessors that I would like to highlight today.  First, the President’s proposal recognizes that moving freight efficiently is critical to our economy and our transportation systems.  The budget requests $10 billion over four years in dedicated funding to invest in freight networks that will improve the movement of goods. These funds will be used to foster economic growth, advance the President’s export initiative, and improve the efficiency and reliability of freight movement nationwide. We will reach out to our industry partners such as shippers, truck and rail representatives and associated labor organizations, to ensure that they will play a meaningful role in crafting investment decisions in partnership with State and local officials.

We recognize that improving project delivery and streamlining the Federal infrastructure permitting processes can yield tangible benefits for Americans while protecting communities and the environment.   The President’s surface transportation reauthorization plan will increase transparency and accountability while at the same time improving interagency coordination.  To advance this effort, the proposal includes $8 million to establish a new interagency permitting acceleration team to be administratively housed within the Office of the Secretary.  This team will work towards the President’s goal of reducing the current permitting processes time by half so that the benefits of new projects will bring can be realized more quickly.

This surface transportation reauthorization plan acknowledges the important role transportation plays in creating ladders of opportunity for our citizens by including $2.2 billion over four years for a new Rapid Growth Area Transit program that will link people to job and educational opportunities in fast growing areas.  In addition, $120 million is requested over four years for a workforce development program that focuses on improving the size, diversity and skill of our Nation’s construction workforce through partnerships with the Department of Labor and the States.

The President’s surface transportation reauthorization plan also includes a new $2 billion competitive grant program that will encourage innovative solutions to meet our most pressing transportation challenges. State and local partners will be evaluated on their willingness to commit to performance improvements in key areas such as safety and congestion management.

The President’s vision includes a major emphasis on preserving and improving today’s highway and transit systems.  Known in the proposal as “Fix-it First”,  the reauthorization proposal encourages government and other transportation stakeholders to make optimal use of system capacity; to implement sound asset management principles, and to focus on achieving and maintaining a state of good repair for transportation assets.

Together, these areas of emphasis will provide a strong foundation from which to manage our surface transportation programs over the next four years. We are hard at work completing the details of this plan, and will soon be proposing formal legislation for your consideration.

Funding Overview

Moving forward on these objectives will require funding increases in the Department’s current surface transportation programs over the next four years. To accomplish this, a total of $72 billion – with nearly $18 billion in FY 2015 is requested for transit programs to focus on the transportation needs of growing suburbs and the deferred maintenance of transportation assets in our cities. The budget request also includes $500 million for a new Rapid Growth Area Transit Program beginning in

FY 2015 to help communities experiencing fast-growing populations meet new transportation demands.

Funding for Highway programs would increase to $199 billion over four years with $49 billion requested for FY 2015.  Included within this total is funding for a new Freight Program and for highway-specific “Fix-it-First” initiatives to focus investments on the critical safety and capital needs of our existing bridges and roadways.  In addition, more than a billion is provided to support construction and repair of significant transportation infrastructure assets on Federal and Tribal lands.  The President’s FY 2015 request continues the progress achieved to date on alternative financing approaches by providing $1 billion to the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program.

The President’s proposal includes funding for rail within the surface transportation reauthorization framework and requests $19 billion over four years to fund rail programs.  For FY 2015, $5 billion is requested to establish a National High- Performance Rail System to support current operations and to improve the rail system of the future.   This bulk of this funding would be divided into two programs—one focused on current passenger rail service initiatives and the other specifically focused on service improvements.

The President’s proposal continues the Department’s commitment to safety by requesting nearly $7 billion for highway safety modes over four years. For FY 2015,

$669 million is requested to support Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration initiatives to ensure the safe operation of trucks and buses. Another $851 million will support the ongoing efforts of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to focus on emerging issues with vehicle safety and to address new challenges posed by new technologies.

Finally, the President’s surface transportation reauthorization proposal includes $5 billion over four years to fund the competitive TIGER grant program.  TIGER grants provide funding for infrastructure projects of national and regional significance and have been an effective infrastructure improvement mechanism for the past five years.  The FY 2015 Budget requests $1.25 billion to continue the TIGER grants program.

STATEMENT OF

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

BEFORE THE

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

“OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR IMPROVING TRUCK SAFETY ON OUR HIGHWAYS”

JULY 29, 2014

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Blunt, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on the importance of safety in the trucking industry.  At the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) we are committed to reducing the number of crashes, injuries and fatalities involving commercial motor vehicles (CMV).  The number of lives lost in large truck- and bus-related crashes has decreased 26 percent since 2000, from 5,620 to 4,183, in 2012.  Injuries decreased from an estimated 166,000 to 126,000 during that same time period.  While this represents significant progress, we must do more to bring these numbers down.  

FMCSA’s Safety Mission

We have identified several serious truck safety trends that drive up these numbers, and we are concerned with all of them.  Our data show that almost one-fifth of these fatalities were truck occupants.  In many of these crashes, the truck driver was not wearing a seat belt.  Working together to educate drivers and the motoring public, we can encourage them to engage in safer driving behaviors.  We want all drivers and the people with whom they share the road to get home safely, and companies want their employees to operate safely.  To do that, we must make the industry safer.

FMCSA oversees the safety operations of more than 500,000 interstate motor carriers, as well as the estimated 4 million active commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders who operate hundreds of billions of combined miles each year.  The vast majority of these operations are crash-free.  Mr. Chairman, it is our obligation to focus on those operators that present the highest risk on our roads.  To accomplish this, we depend heavily on our State partners supported through our grant programs and collaboration with the motor carrier industry and safety advocacy groups, in adherence with our three core principles:  raise the bar to enter the motor carrier industry; require high safety standards to remain in the industry; and remove high-risk carriers, drivers, and service providers from operation.  As I will elaborate in my testimony today, the Agency’s implementation of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21^st Century Act (MAP-21) aligns well with these priorities.  To date, the Agency has implemented more than twenty provisions of MAP-21, which gave the Agency important tools to improve CMV safety and remove unsafe operators from the Nation’s highways.  We have promulgated a number of rules that allow us to take action against drivers and companies that violate our safety rules. 

Investment in Crash Avoidance Technologies

One way to achieve increased safety is to invest in crash avoidance technologies.  FMCSA and our colleagues at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Department’s Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office have worked closely together to research and evaluate new technologies to help large trucks and buses avoid crashes.  Technologies such as Electronic Stability Control (ESC) systems prevent crashes and save lives.  NHTSA estimates these systems could prevent 40 to 56 percent of untripped rollover crashes and 14 percent of loss-of-control crashes.  The NHTSA proposal to require ESC on heavy vehicles would prevent as many as 2,300 crashes, nearly 900 injuries, and up to 60 fatalities.  

Compliance, Safety, Accountability

Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) is FMCSA's compliance model to improve CMV safety and reduce large truck and bus crashes, injuries, and fatalities on our Nation's highways.  MAP-21 included statutory revisions and additional authorities needed to improve the CSA model.  For example, MAP-21 provided the Agency with flexibility to allow an investigator to formally request records in writing without the previous restriction of having to display credentials in person.  This clarifies FMCSA’s authority to conduct off-site enforcement interventions – to formally demand that a motor carrier provide records without having to travel to the motor carrier’s business location.  This has been vital to expanding FMCSA’s and our State partners’ enforcement efforts to include off-site reviews and investigations, increasing our ability to provide effective safety oversight on a larger portion of the industry than before.

Additionally, we are focusing on a number of improvements to the Safety Measurement System (SMS) to strengthen the identification of unsafe companies and prioritizing them for enforcement interventions.   Launched in December 2010 as part of the Agency’s CSA program, SMS uses roadside inspection and investigation data to prioritize high risk motor carriers for interventions before crashes occur.  Recently, we released a new study that confirmed that the SMS is more effective at identifying both truck and bus companies for targeted enforcement than the system it replaced.  In this study, FMCSA compared the crash rates of those carriers identified for intervention with those without identified compliance and safety problems.  Companies that the SMS identified as high-risk for future crashes had a future crash rate of more than double the national average.  Going forward, FMCSA will use this data to flag companies for interventions by the Agency–which include roadside inspections, warning letters and onsite investigations–that will lead to improved safety and fewer crashes.

FMCSA continues to improve how SMS works in order to identify motor carriers posing the greatest risk to safety.  Our responsiveness to industry, safety advocates, oversight agencies and Congress brings about new policies, reports, and changes to the SMS.  Recently, we announced changes to how we handle adjudicated violations.  For inspections occurring on or after August 23, 2014, motor carriers and drivers will be able to request updates to their data to reflect when the driver or carrier is found not guilty or a violation is changed or dismissed in court.  These changes are part of our continued effort to improve the quality of our violation data.

We expect to complete our “crash weighting” research soon, which will address several questions on the feasibility of determining the role of the carrier in the crash.  The study looks not only at the process to conduct this type of evaluation, but also the ultimate impact on the information on the Agency’s ability to identify carrier’s at risk of future crashes.    

Additionally, we are working towards publication of a proposed rule on Safety Fitness Determination that would increase the use of inspection data in making safety fitness determinations for motor carriers.

Passenger Carrier Safety

FMCSA continues to use its MAP-21 authorities to strengthen the safety of passengers who ride buses throughout our Nation.  In 2013, as part of an overall motorcoach safety initiative, we dispatched more than 50 specially trained investigators to conduct in-depth reviews of the safety management practices of the 250 most at-risk motorcoach companies during “Operation Quick Strike.”  As a result, we removed 52 unsafe bus companies and 340 vehicles from the road.  During the second phase of the initiative FMCSA investigators visited more than 1,300 carriers with minimal inspection history or data with the Agency.  As a result, we identified more than 240 for follow-up investigations.  Now we train all investigators to use the enhanced investigative techniques employed during Operation Quick Strike, and we have conducted evaluations and gap analyses with an eye toward how best to maintain an intensified level of oversight on the passenger carrier industry.  

National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners

Another aspect of our safety program is our newly implemented National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners.  As of May 21 of this year, only medical examiners listed on the National Registry can conduct physical examinations of commercial drivers.  This ensures that these drivers can operate safely and be healthy while on the road.  To be listed on the registry, medical examiners must complete a training course and pass an exam to show that they understand our medical standards and understand the physical demands of driving a CMV when certifying a driver’s health.

Currently, there are more than 32,000 certified medical examiners on the Registry with many more scheduled to take the exam.  We expect to have more than 40,000 certified by the end of the year.  The National Registry builds on FMCSA’s 2008 final rule merging the medical certification process with the Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) issuance and renewal process, requiring that CDL holders provide proof of their medical qualifications to the State licensing agencies.

Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Another issue of concern in the area of driver health is obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).  FMCSA plans to address OSA through a formal rulemaking process, but only after collecting and analyzing the necessary data and research.  Presently, we are gathering data, but have no immediate plans to move forward with a rulemaking.  At this time, a sleep apnea test is NOT required to obtain or renew a medical certificate.  The Agency has asked our Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee and our Medical Review Board to provide recommendations to address sleep apnea, but that is just one part of what will be an extensive data-gathering process.

Hours of Service Rules and Fatigue Management

Fatigue is a leading factor in large truck crashes and a significant safety issue overall.  The hours-of-service (HOS) regulations for truck drivers were updated in 2013 based on extensive research and data to ensure that drivers have the off-duty time they need to be alert behind the wheel. There is also an education component to preventing fatigue associated with drivers’ activities when they are off-duty and the irregular schedules they are subjected to in order to meet the demands of shippers and receivers. 

In recognition of the impact of fatigue on highway safety, FMCSA and its Canadian counterparts led a consortium of government, insurance, and motor carrier agencies in developing the North American Fatigue Management Program (NAFMP).  The NAFMP is designed to address the issue of driver fatigue among CMV operators and contains valuable information and tools that can be applied across all modes of transportation.   The program contains information on fatigue management education for drivers and their families, carriers, shippers, and receivers.  It contains additional information on sleep disorder screening and treatment, trip scheduling, and fatigue management technologies.  Available in English and French, the NAFMP allows for more effective fatigue countermeasures and a comprehensive fatigue management approach.

The revised hours-of-service (HOS) rules for truck drivers went fully into effect on July 1, 2013.  This revised rule includes two modest changes to the optional 34-hour restart – first, limiting the restart to once a week, and second, requiring a driver to have two overnight periods off duty from 1 a.m. until 5 a.m.  Only those drivers working more than 60 hours in 7 days or 70 hours in 8 days are affected by the changes, by having their work limited to a maximum average of 70 hours per week.  This is still nearly double the national standard of a 40-hour work week.  The once a week limit is designed to prevent cumulative fatigue in drivers working the maximum number of hours week after week, and the 2-overnight periods recognize that a 34 hour break with just one overnight period does not provide adequate opportunity for restorative sleep.  Both provisions were well supported by scientific research.  The rule improves safety by reducing driver fatigue. 

Public input was a major part of this rule.  Before it became final, FMCSA held 6 public listening sessions and carefully considered approximately 21,000 formal docket comments, many submitted by the CMV industry, particularly drivers and carriers.  This was after years of research and public input from industry and safety advocates.  The rule in place today lists 80 sources of scientific research and data the Agency reviewed and considered, all of this on top of hundreds of studies regarding fatigue and hours of work that were considered in past HOS rulemakings, including research on the appropriateness and value of a “restart.”    In August 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the new HOS rules (except for the application of the 30-minute rest break requirement for short-haul drivers), after twice overturning previous versions.  

As noted, the 2011 final rule included two changes to the 34-hour restart, which impacts less than 15 percent of drivers who work the most extreme schedules of up to 70-hours per week.  The changes limit  use of the restart to once every 168 hours (or seven days) and require that the restart include two nighttime periods from 1 – 5 a.m. when science tells us our bodies demand sleep the most.  We based this requirement on the extensive body of research that shows the consequences of long work hours on driver health and the correlation between long weekly work hours and a higher risk of sleep loss and crashes.  Scientific review concluded generally that long work hours were associated with poorer health, increased work-related and non-work related injury rates, increased illness, a greater risk of unhealthy weight gain, cardiovascular disease, and other ailments.

Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize that a driver is never required to use the 34-hour restart.  Drivers have always been required to cease operations when they run out of time.  Such a restart is necessary only if a long-haul truck driver wants to work longer than 60 hours in 7 days or 70 hours in 8 days.  Less than 15 percent of long-haul truck drivers – those who work the most extreme schedules – are impacted by the current rule.  Those averaging 70 hours per week or less are NOT affected by the changes to the restart because they would never work the number of hours that would require them to use the restart. However, any carrier that previously allowed or required its drivers to average up to 82 hours per week, an amount allowed under the previous rule, must now cease this practice.

We have heard criticism that the new rule discriminates against nighttime drivers and forces them to drive during the day and in prime rush hours.  We have seen no evidence to support this claim.  The rule does not prevent carriers and drivers from setting their own schedules, nor does it restrict drivers from being on the road during any time of the day.  Whatever the limits on driving and work hours may be, if the motor carrier and driver plan their schedule so tightly that the driver can barely complete the run legally, then problems with completing runs inevitably will occur.  That fact cannot support any rollback of the current rule.

Independent studies have shown that daytime sleep is less beneficial than nighttime sleep, and that drivers who have two overnight rest periods are more alert and safer than drivers who get just one overnight period.  Largely for this reason, we are concerned about legislative efforts to increase, even temporarily, the number of hours a truck driver could work from the 70-hour maximum on the books today.  Removing the rest requirements could expose the public to greater risk every time they are on the road.  The final rule would save 19 lives and prevent approximately 1,400 crashes and 560 injuries each year—a significant safety benefit.

HOS Field Study

Due to the importance of driver fatigue as a safety risk, we continue to research several issues related to hours-of-service.  Following the MAP-21 mandate, FMCSA completed the Hours-of-Service Field Study, which examined the effectiveness of the new HOS rule, including the modified 34-hour restart provision.  Released to Congress earlier this year, the results show that having at least two nighttime rest periods from 1 – 5 a.m. helps to lessen fatigue.  Specifically, this naturalistic field study found that drivers whose weekly duty cycles were preceded by a restart break with one nighttime period as compared to a restart break with two or more nighttime periods – had more lapses of attention, reported greater sleepiness and showed increased lane deviation.

Detention Time & Split Sleep

We are researching two other issues closely related to driver hours of service: driver detention time and split sleep.  Most of us agree that detention time, or excessive waiting times associated with loading or unloading cargo, can negatively impact a driver’s schedule and interfere with that driver’s ability to complete deliveries within the hours-of-service regulations.  We have completed phase 1 of the study, which will provide us with a better understanding of the scope of detention times throughout the industry.   Meanwhile, we are continuing with phase 2, which will look closely at the safety impacts of detention time. 

During many of the listening sessions we held for the hours of service rulemaking, we heard that drivers desire greater flexibility on some of the hours of service provisions, such as split sleep, which divides the 10-hour off-duty period into two separate rest periods.  As a result, later this year, we will begin a pilot program to collect data on the impacts of split sleep.  The field study will measure the impact of split sleep periods on driver alertness and sleep quantity.  We have begun discussions with our colleagues from the American Trucking Associations, the National Association of Small Trucking Companies, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), and potential technology providers for this study effort.

Electronic Logging Devices

Closely related to HOS is our electronic logging device rulemaking, another MAP-21 requirement.  In March, we announced our proposal to require motor carriers to use electronic logging devices to improve the quality of logbook data and improve compliance with HOS rules. 

This proposed rule would address how the Agency ensures that the use of ELDs does not result in increased driver harassment by carriers to break the law,  help businesses cut unnecessary paperwork, and increase efficiency for law enforcement personnel and inspectors who review drivers’ logbooks.  Analysis shows that electronic logging devices would help reduce crashes by improving compliance with HOS rules.  The comment period ended on June 26, and we are currently reviewing more than 1,700 comments that we received. We also received more than 11,300 letters from individuals who signed The AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up for Truck Safety Petition.  A copy of the petition is included in FMCSA’s rulemaking docket concerning electronic logging devices:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FMCSA-2010-0167-1177.  We are working to finalize this important rule as expeditiously as possible.  

Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse

To further prevent crashes, we must ensure that drivers are healthy, sober and drug-free.  We published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) to implement the MAP-21 provision on this subject.  The Clearinghouse would require truck and bus companies (and other entities responsible for managing drug & alcohol testing programs) to report verified positive drug and alcohol test results, test refusals, negative return-to-duty test results and follow-up testing.  This information would populate a repository with positive drug and alcohol tests by CDL holders.  Once implemented, employers would be required to conduct pre-employment searches in the repository for all new CDL drivers and annual searches on current drivers.  The comment period for the rule closed on May 21.

Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level CMV Operators

MAP-21 directed the Agency to issue final regulations to require training for entry level CDL applicants.  The Agency’s rulemaking must address knowledge and skills for safe operation and other issues. Last year, the Agency held public listening sessions on this issue.  These sessions provided the Agency with substantial information about training for entry level CDL applicants. The Agency will soon engage the services of a convener to assess the feasibility of conducting a negotiated rulemaking to implement this important MAP-21 provision.

Coercion Rule

On May 13, FMCSA published an NPRM to adopt regulations that prohibit motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries from coercing drivers to operate CMVs in violation of certain provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations – including drivers’ HOS limits and the CDL regulations and associated drug and alcohol testing rules – or the Hazardous Materials Regulations.  In addition, the NPRM would prohibit anyone who operates a CMV in interstate commerce from coercing a driver to violate the commercial regulations.  This NPRM includes procedures for drivers to report incidents of coercion to FMCSA and rules of practice the Agency would follow in response to allegations of coercion and describes penalties that may be imposed on entities found to have coerced drivers.  This proposed rulemaking is authorized by section 32911 of MAP-21, amending the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984.  The comment period closes on August 11.

GROW AMERICA

In May, President Obama and Secretary Foxx proposed the GROW AMERICA Act– a four-year, $302 billion transportation bill that will help us tackle our infrastructure deficit while improving safety and providing the reliability that our partners at the State and local level need.  Our plan will ensure the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and will boost funding for highways, transit, and rail.  It will invest $5 billion in four more years of our TIGER grant program, which supports innovative, sustainable, multimodal solutions to regional transportation challenges.  At FMCSA, GROW AMERICA would help us streamline our grants processes to improve the efficiency of our grantees.

One of our biggest Agency goals in GROW AMERICA is to address driver compensation.  Many over-the-road truck and bus drivers are compensated by the mile or on a fixed-rate per load.  As a result, they are not paid for extended periods of time spent on-the-clock when they are detained by waiting for shipments to be loaded or unloaded at shippers’ or receivers’ facilities.  Similarly, over-the-road motorcoach drivers are often compensated in a manner other than an hourly wage.  Truck and bus drivers deserve to earn at least the Federal minimum fair hourly wage for all on-duty time.   Failing to pay them for time they spend working, but are detained waiting for shipments may increase the pressures they face, thereby, jeopardizing their safety and the safety of others by speeding and driving tired or beyond the hours of service  as a matter of economic necessity.  Furthermore, these dedicated, well-trained professionals deserve to earn a livable, hourly wage and be compensated fairly for their time and contributions to the vitality of the American economy. 

Finally, we propose allowing for the criminal prosecution of a person who knowingly and willfully violates an imminent hazard out-of-service order and operates after FMCSA has shut them down. 

We hope these changes will make it easier for all of our stakeholders, from drivers and carriers to enforcement partners to work together toward our shared safety goals.

Conclusion

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Blunt, and members of the Subcommittee, for allowing me to speak to you today on these important issues relating to truck safety.  We must all work together to create the safest trucking industry possible.  Together we can make a difference for safety.