Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Innovation, Integration, Successes, and Challenges

STATEMENT OF

EARL LAWRENCE,
DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION’S
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION OFFICE,

BEFORE THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION:

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS: INNOVATION, INTEGRATION, SUCCESSES, AND CHALLENGES,

MARCH 15, 2017.

Chairman Thune, Senator Nelson, Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.  My name is Earl Lawrence, Director of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration Office.  In this role, I am responsible for the facilitation of all regulations, policies, and procedures required to support the FAA’s UAS integration efforts.  I also represent the FAA on the Senior Steering Group of the UAS Executive Committee focusing on coordination and alignment of efforts among key federal government agencies, and I oversee the Subcommittee of the Drone Advisory Committee.

The Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) and FAA’s vision for fully integrating UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS) entails UAS operating harmoniously, side-by-side with manned aircraft in a safe and secure manner.  This vision goes beyond the accommodation practices in use today, which largely rely on operational segregation to maintain systemic safety.  As we work to realize this vision, the FAA intends to work incrementally to introduce UAS into the NAS after careful consideration of the safety of people and property both in the air and on the ground.  

            Two years ago, the FAA appeared before this committee to discuss the status of the safe, incremental integration of UAS—more commonly referred to as drones—into the NAS, and also into the FAA.  In that time, we have made significant progress toward our goal of fully integrating this new class of aircraft and their operators.  This progress is the result of significant coordination efforts across the FAA. While my office serves as the focal point for external stakeholders, almost every policy and support office within the Agency has dedicated staff and resources to supporting these integration activities.  Today, the United States is clearly a global leader in UAS integration, and I would like to highlight for you some examples of our accomplishments, our challenges, and our ongoing work to build upon our successes as we move forward with the next phase of UAS integration.

Small UAS Registration

            Aircraft registration is a foundational statutory requirement that applies to all civil aircraft and promotes a culture of accountability.  At the time of our last discussion, we were experiencing a huge influx of new, casual UAS users—people who fly UAS for personal entertainment or recreation.  Many of these operators do not have the basic aviation knowledge, training, or experience required for pilots of traditional manned aircraft.  Growing concern about reports of UAS flying near airports and manned aircraft highlighted the need to educate these users about how to operate UAS safely as soon as possible, preferably before they began operating small UAS in the NAS.

            We knew at the outset that we would need to work with industry stakeholders in order to develop a registration process for small UAS.  The Secretary of Transportation and the FAA Administrator announced the creation of a UAS Registration Task Force on October 19, 2015.  This Task Force was comprised of industry representatives with a range of stakeholder viewpoints, interests, and knowledge.  The group met for three days in November 2015 to develop recommendations for a small UAS registration process.

After evaluating the Task Force’s recommendations and public comments, the FAA published an Interim Final Rule on Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft on December 14, 2015.  This rule established a new web-based process for small UAS registration, relieving operators of the need to use the legacy paper-based process, and took effect on December 21, 2015.  The requirements stipulate that owners must register their UAS online if the combined weight of the vehicle and anything it carries is more than 0.55 lbs. and less than 55 lbs., and is flown outdoors for either recreational or non-recreational purposes, consistent with the statutory requirement for aircraft registration.  Within the first two weeks of online registration opening, over 160,000 UAS owners had registered their UAS.

The registration process serves two critical functions that will help foster a culture of safety, security, and accountability in the emerging UAS community.  First, it provides a means to associate an unmanned aircraft with its owner. This helps law enforcement and regulators identify an operator more quickly in the event of an incident and ensures operators are aware that they are responsible for the safe operation of their vehicle. Secondly, and equally important, the registration process provides an opportunity to educate users about how to safely operate UAS in the NAS, including instructions to not fly near manned aircraft and always fly within visual line-of-sight, as well as an acknowledgement that flying in the nation’s airspace comes with certain responsibilities and expectations.  To date, over 750,000 small UAS owners have registered, including more than 40,000 in the last two weeks of December 2016.  The FAA has used the registration database on three occasions to provide registrants with important, time-sensitive safety information about flying their UAS – during Hurricane Matthew, wildfire season, and the Iditarod Great Sled Race.

Small UAS Rule (Part 107)

            Building on the successful launch of the online registration system, the FAA adopted a similar approach of engagement and collaboration with industry stakeholders in the development of the first set of operating rules for small UAS, which forms the bedrock of the regulatory framework for full UAS integration.  Because UAS technology is evolving at a rapid pace, a flexible regulatory framework is imperative.  Our goal is to provide the basic rules for operators, not identify specific technological safety solutions that could quickly become outdated.  We’ve achieved this goal with the final small UAS rule (14 CFR part 107), which was issued on June 21, 2016 and went into effect on August 29, 2016.

Part 107 introduces a brand new pilot certificate that is specific for UAS operations—the Remote Pilot Certificate.  Unlike a part 61 airman certificate (certification for manned aircraft), which necessarily has more stringent requirements, an individual can obtain a Remote Pilot Certificate by passing an aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved testing center.  Alternatively, if the individual holds a current non-student part 61 airman certificate, the individual may complete an online UAS training course in lieu of the knowledge test.  Approximately 24,000 applicants have taken the Remote Pilot Knowledge Exam, and over 91% have passed.

The small UAS rule has also greatly reduced the number of, and the need for, Section 333 exemptions, which the FAA used to grant case-by-case approval for certain unmanned aircraft to conduct commercial operations.  Before part 107, the primary way to operate a drone for non-hobby purposes was to obtain a Section 333 exemption and an accompanying Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA).  The FAA issued 5,551 exemptions under Section 333.   

The provisions of part 107 are designed to minimize risks to other aircraft and people and property on the ground, as well as provide the UAS industry and operator community with the flexibility to innovate.  Among other operational limits such as speed and altitude, the regulations require pilots to keep an unmanned aircraft within visual line-of-sight, fly during daylight hours, and prohibit flights over unprotected people on the ground who are not directly involved in the UAS operation.

In keeping with our goal of a flexible framework, part 107 also allows operators to apply online for waivers and airspace authorizations to fly outside the rule’s requirements, provided that they demonstrate their proposed operation may be conducted safely.  This process has been used successfully to issue over 400 waivers and 2,200 airspace authorizations for UAS operations in controlled airspace, including the drone show featured during halftime at this year’s Super Bowl.  Part 107 allows for operations in Class G airspace without prior air traffic control authorization; operations in Class B, C, D, and E airspace (i.e. controlled airspace) may be permitted with authorization from the FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO). 

The small UAS rule provides UAS operators with unprecedented access to the NAS while also ensuring the safety of the skies, and was largely well received by the UAS industry.  However, it is only the first step in the FAA’s plan to integrate UAS into the NAS.  Consistent with our incremental integration strategy, we intend to use a risk-based approach to facilitate expanded UAS operations, including operations over people, operations beyond visual line-of-sight, and transportation of persons and property. 

Next Steps and Challenges Ahead            

The FAA’s commitment to further expanding permissible UAS operations and enabling this emerging technology to safely achieve its full potential requires resolving several key challenges.  Congress recognized a number of these challenges in the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016.  Before operations beyond visual line-of-sight can become routine, FAA must address risks posed by drones to other manned aircraft, as well as risks posed by drones during a loss-of-operator-control event.  Additionally, preemption, privacy, enforcement, and security – both physical and cyber – remain key issues as UAS integration progresses.

Technical Challenges

One way the FAA is working to address the technical challenges presented by increasingly complex UAS operations is to support its UAS test sites in conducting critical research.  One of the primary goals of the test site program is to help the FAA determine technical and operational trends that could support safety-related decision making for UAS-NAS integration.  In 2016, the test sites continued to conduct research to validate key operational requirements for UAS integration, including research and testing into technology that enables UAS to detect and avoid other aircraft and obstacles, investigation of lost link causes and resolutions, and evaluation of the adequacy of ATC and communications procedures with UAS.  Test site activities have also explored industry applications of UAS, such as emergency response, utility company infrastructure inspection, wildlife census, and precision agriculture.

To complement the work being done at and by the UAS test sites, in May 2015 the FAA selected a UAS Center of Excellence (COE), led by Mississippi State University and the Alliance for System Safety of UAS through Research Excellence (ASSURE).  The goal of the UAS COE is to create a cost-sharing relationship between academia, industry, and government that will focus on research areas of primary interest to the FAA and the UAS community.  The FAA has received initial research results for several research topics, including airborne and ground-based collision testing, which are currently being peer reviewed by both internal and external research teams. This work fits into the FAA’s overall UAS research and development portfolio, which is primarily focused on applied research to support the development of rules, policies, and procedures. 

To keep pace with the rapid increase in the number of UAS operations, and to pave the way for the full implementation of beyond visual line-of-sight operations, FAA is working with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and industry to develop and eventually deploy a UAS Traffic Management (UTM) System.  NASA’s research concept specifically considers small UAS operations below 400 feet, in airspace that contains low-density manned aircraft operations.  NASA has developed a phased approach for their UTM concept, building from rural to urban and from low to high-density airspace.  In April 2016, NASA coordinated with the six FAA-selected test sites to perform phase one testing of the UTM research platform.  A Research Transition Team (RTT) has been established between the FAA and NASA to coordinate the UTM initiative, as the concept introduces policy, regulatory, and infrastructure implications that must be fully understood and addressed before moving forward with technology deployment.  Additionally, the UTM work with NASA will inform our efforts with respect to UAS operating in proximity to airports.  A second RTT has also been established with NASA, which is focused on UAS operating in higher altitude and controlled airspace, as opposed to the UTM initiative, which focuses on operations in low altitude managed airspace.

Security and Enforcement

As Congress recognized in the 2016 FAA Extension, the security challenges presented by UAS technology require a whole-of-government response.  The FAA is working with several departments and agencies – including the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and others – to identify and evaluate technologies that detect and track unmanned aircraft movement through the NAS.  However, technologies to detect and track unmanned aircraft movement through the NAS are only one part of the equation to address the security challenges presented by evolving UAS technologies.  To adequately secure and protect the airspace we must continue to educate the public on the safe operation of UAS and work with our law enforcement partners at every level of government in responding to incidents involving threats from UAS.

We also continue to work closely with our industry partners to evaluate these promising drone-detection technologies.  As directed in Section 2206 of the 2016 FAA Extension, the FAA has established a pilot program to evaluate some of these technologies, which have been tested in airport environments at New York’s JFK Airport, Atlantic City International Airport, and Denver International Airport.  Further testing will take place at Dallas-Fort Worth later this year.  In addition, the FAA is working with interagency partners to develop policies and procedures for restricting UAS operations over fixed site facilities, as directed by Section 2209 of the 2016 FAA Extension.

The potential for conflicts between manned and unmanned aircraft has become a very real challenge in integrating these new technologies into the NAS.  We are seeing an increased number of drone-sighting reports from pilots of manned aircraft, with approximately 1,800 reports of sightings in 2016, compared to 1,200 reports the year before. As the Federal agency responsible for the safety of the flying community, the FAA remains concerned about the increasing number of these reports.  To begin addressing this issue, we are actively engaging in public education and outreach efforts, such as “Know Before You Fly” and the small UAS registration process. 

Sometimes, however, education is not enough.  If an unauthorized UAS operation is intentional, creates an unacceptable risk to safety, or is intended to cause harm, strong and swift enforcement action will be taken.  Recently, we announced a comprehensive settlement agreement with a UAS operator that violated airspace regulations and aircraft operating rules by flying drones in congested airspace over New York City and Chicago.  However, one of the enforcement challenges we often face is identifying the operator of a UAS flying where it shouldn’t.  This Committee has recognized that challenge with Section 2202 of the 2016 FAA Extension, which directs the FAA to convene industry stakeholders to develop consensus standards for remotely identifying UAS operators.  We plan to begin convening stakeholders this spring.

Continued engagement with the law enforcement community is paramount to ensuring public safety.  In January 2015, the FAA published guidance for the law enforcement community on its UAS Web site, and has been actively engaging with law enforcement agencies at local, State, and Federal levels to reduce confusion about how to respond to UAS events.  The FAA encourages citizens to call local law enforcement if they feel someone is endangering people or property on the ground or in the sky.  Local law enforcement should then work with local FAA field offices to ensure these safety issues are addressed.

Continued Engagement with Industry

            As the FAA moves forward with UAS integration, we will continue to involve all stakeholders in framing challenges, prioritizing activities, and developing consensus solutions.  By leveraging this expertise, we ensure that the FAA maintains its position as the global leader in aviation safety.  Last summer, we formed the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC).  Its members include representatives from industry, government, labor, and academia.  The DAC will allow us to look at drone use from every angle, while considering the different viewpoints and needs of the diverse UAS community. 

The first DAC meeting was held in September 2016 and its members have already started to work on assisting us in two key areas: identifying the roles and responsibilities of drone operators, manufacturers, and Federal, state, and local officials related to drone use in populated areas; and determining what the highest-priority UAS operations are and how we can enable access to the airspace needed to conduct these operations.  The FAA recently created a new tasking concerning a third key area: how to fund the full complement of services required to safely integrate UAS operations into the NAS in the long-term.  We look forward to receiving and reviewing the DAC’s recommendations.

In October 2016, we also began working with industry to form an Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team (UAST), modeled after the very successful Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST). This group’s mission is to collect and use UAS operational data to identify safety risks, and then develop and voluntarily implement mitigation strategies to address those risks. The group is currently working on several projects, including helping the FAA develop a survey to the UAS operator community.

Apart from our work with the DAC and the UAST, the FAA held its first UAS symposium in Daytona Beach, Florida in April last year.  The symposium provided a forum for UAS stakeholders to provide feedback directly to FAA decision-makers on topics related to UAS integration. Nearly 500 attendees heard keynote remarks from the FAA Administrator and Deputy Administrator, and participated in discussions on topics ranging from aircraft and pilot certification to legal and policy issues related to UAS operations and integration.

Our second UAS symposium will be held in the Washington D.C. area on March 27-29, 2017.  Conversations will touch on the more significant challenges that integration presents, including the intersection of privacy and preemption, the importance of harmonizing international regulations, and the array of new safety and security risks associated with increased UAS operations.  The symposium will also have a Resource Center to provide attendees with one-on-one technical support on authorizations, waivers, Part 107 requirements, and other policies and regulations.

Building on Our Success

            Moving forward, we intend to build on the progress that we have made this past year with two notable initiatives currently underway.  We are developing a Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) to automate the process for UAS operators to notify Air Traffic Control of flights within five miles of an airport center or to get authorization to fly in certain classes of airspace.  This initiative will be the first step toward implementing UTM.  As part of LAANC, the FAA will publish UAS facility maps that indicate likely safe altitudes for UAS flight and distances around airports.  Industry applications will facilitate interaction with the maps and may provide automatic notification to the FAA and operational authorization to UAS operators through data exchange.  Data received by the FAA may be used by Air Traffic Control to contact the operator in the event of an emergency.  On February 1, 2017, the FAA held the first in a series of industry workshops to discuss this initiative in greater detail, and recently released a sample of 10 facility maps to the industry partners involved in LAANC.

The second initiative is to develop an integrated gateway—a common web portal and associated API—that will serve as a one-stop-shop for all UAS interactions with the FAA.  It will allow UAS owners and operators to register their aircraft, apply for an airspace authorization or waiver, file an accident report, and keep abreast of the latest FAA news and announcements concerning UAS.  This gateway will be designed for desktops, laptops, tablets, and phones, and will serve as the platform for future communications with the FAA as UAS rules and regulations evolve.

Conclusion

The progress that we have made, in particular during the past year, might have seemed unimaginable not long ago.  From the beginning, we knew that we had to engage our stakeholders, and it paid off with the creation of a UAS registry and the successful implementation of a flexible regulatory framework to enable routine small UAS operations.  Our collaborative working relationships with the DAC and UAST will help inform and prioritize integration activities, ensure we remain engaged with industry trends, and maintain clear channels of communication to convey expectations and solicit feedback.  We know, however, that these accomplishments are only the first step.  As reinforced in the 2016 FAA Extension, there are many important issues yet to be addressed and we will continue to work with our stakeholders as we move forward.

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

Steps Being Taken to Integrate Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the National Airspace System

Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization

Safety and General Aviation

Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request

The State of Positive Train Control Implementation in the United States

Oversight of the Amtrak Accident in Philadelphia

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF SARAH FEINBERG,
ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

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

"OVERSIGHT OF THE AMTRAK ACCIDENT IN PHILADELPHIA"

June 2, 2015

Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss issues related to the tragic derailment of Amtrak Train 188 on May 12, 2015, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We extend our deepest sympathies to the victims of this accident, and to their loved ones. And I can assure them that we will take every step we can to ensure an accident like this cannot happen again.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) understands the need to take action quickly to address the cause or causes of this incident. While it will take time to complete the investigation, we did not and will not wait to take immediate actions that will improve the safety of Amtrak operations on the Northeast Corridor (NEC), as well as other passenger rail operations. On May 16, FRA outlined steps necessary for Amtrak to take before allowing its operations to resume north of Philadelphia, and we followed that with an Emergency Order on May 21. These were our initial actions and we are doing more.

The FRA team has been working closely with our partners at the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to investigate the cause of the May 12th derailment. Today, I will provide the Committee information that we have confirmed. Then, I will focus on FRA’s process to complete its investigation, and describe the actions we have taken in direct response to this tragedy. Next, I will address several broader safety issues highlighted by the derailment, including implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) technology and key human factor issues.

As you know, the railroad industry has made remarkable safety improvements over the last decade. However, the devastating effects from an accident like the May 12th derailment make clear that we still have hard work ahead to make rail transportation as safe as possible, particularly when technology exists that can prevent some of the most tragic accidents. With that in mind, I want to assure you that FRA is firmly committed to taking additional actions that will mitigate and or eliminate the risks and hazards identified in the ongoing investigation.

Amtrak Train 188 Derailment in Philadelphia

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015, Amtrak Northeast Regional Train 188 (Train 188) departed Washington, D.C.’s Union Station at 7:15 p.m., traveling northbound on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) on the way to Penn Station in New York City. Train 188 made five stops before the accident, the last being at Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station, where it arrived at 9:06 p.m. and departed at 9:10 p.m., from track No. 4. At approximately 9:21 p.m. and 9 miles from the 30th Street Station, the train derailed near milepost 81.63 while traveling through a curve at Frankford Junction.

According to Amtrak, at the time of the derailment there were five Amtrak crewmembers, three Amtrak commuting employees and 250 passengers aboard, occupying approximately 50 percent of the train’s capacity. Train 188’s consist was conventional for Amtrak Northeast Regional Service - consisting of an ACS-64 locomotive, six Amfleet1 passenger coaches and one café car. As a result of the accident, eight passengers were killed, many were seriously injured, and many more had lesser injuries. Some passengers remain in the hospital today.

I learned of the derailment within approximately 30 minutes of its occurrence and immediately dispatched investigative personnel to the scene. The initial FRA team included a Regional Administrator, a Deputy Regional Administrator and five rail safety inspectors from the following disciplines: signal and train control; track, motive power and equipment; and operating practices. A safety specialist from our Passenger Rail Division was also on-scene that night and my Chief Safety Officer joined them the next morning.

After dispatching the investigative team, I travelled to the scene that same evening and witnessed the heroic actions of the first responders as they rescued passengers and provided medical treatment. The Philadelphia Police and Fire Departments, other first responders, and the citizens who provided water and assistance were all instrumental in alleviating the immediate needs after this tragic accident. I commend them for their immediate and impressive response.

After the initial emergency response efforts, FRA began its investigation – working in close coordination with the NTSB and Amtrak - to collect, secure, and preserve critical forensic information, including the event recorder data, forward-facing locomotive camera video footage, phone and radio transmission recordings, records of mechanical and track inspection and maintenance, and records related to the train crew’s work history, qualification, and rules compliance. Also, FRA subpoenaed the engineer’s cell phone records, which we shared with the NTSB.

FRA personnel also assisted in conducting interviews with passengers to ascertain their location inside the cars and their use of emergency egress points, as well as with emergency responders to identify any problems with the initial rescue efforts.

Over the subsequent six days, FRA personnel continued their close work with the NTSB to conduct additional inspection, testing, and research. The investigation team collected, verified and analyzed data related to:

(1) the track condition;

(2) on-board mechanical equipment including, the locomotive throttle, alerter, braking system, event recorder; and

(3) locomotive cab and wayside signal operation.

FRA also interviewed Amtrak, Conrail and Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority employees. Three personnel from U.S. DOT’s Volpe National Transportation Systems Center traveled to the accident site to support FRA and NTSB in collecting information about the crashworthiness performance of the passenger cars.

As has been widely covered by the media, FRA’s and NTSB’s investigation revealed that as Train 188 approached the curve from the south, it was traveling over a straightaway with a maximum authorized passenger train speed of 80 mph. The maximum authorized passenger train speed for the curve was 50 mph. The event recorder data indicate that the train was traveling approximately 106 mph when it was in the curve’s 50-mph speed restriction, exceeding the maximum authorized speed on the straightaway by 26 mph, and the maximum authorized speed of the curve by 56 mph.1

The event recorder data also indicate the locomotive engineer made an emergency application of Train 188’s air brake system, slowing the train to approximately 102 mph before derailing in the curve.

FRA’s Investigation

FRA’s primary goal in its investigation is to prevent this type of accident from ever occurring again by determining whether the railroad or its employees violated any statutes, regulations or orders, and whether any immediate enforcement or corrective action is necessary to remedy the circumstances related to the accident. The FRA Investigator in Charge (IIC) is working closely with our mechanical, operating practice, signal, and track disciplines to determine if any federal regulations were violated and to ensure that all of Amtrak’s safety and operating rules were followed. This includes compliance with hours of service laws and regulations, electronic devices prohibitions, track and signal inspections, and numerous other requirements.

Immediate Response and Initial Steps

In response to the derailment, FRA instructed Amtrak to take immediate actions to ensure the safe operation of passenger trains on the Northeast Corridor (NEC). FRA has formalized these requirements in its May 21st Emergency Order No. 31 (EO 31). The Order contains the following requirements (2) :

• Amtrak must immediately implement code changes to its Automatic Train Control (ATC) System to enforce the passenger train speed limit ahead of the curve at Frankford Junction. This was completed on May 17th.
   
• By May 26th, Amtrak must survey the NEC ATC system and identify each main track curve where there is a reduction of more than 20 mph from the maximum authorized approach speed to that curve for passenger trains, and provide a list of each curve location to FRA. This list was submitted to FRA on May 26th.
   
• By June 10th, Amtrak must submit an action plan for FRA-approval identifying modifications to its ATC System (or other signal systems) that Amtrak will make to enable warning and enforcement of applicable passenger train speeds at the identified curves. If such modifications would interfere with the timely implementation of a PTC system or are not otherwise feasible, Amtrak’s plan must describe alternative procedures that it will adopt at the identified curves to ensure compliance with applicable passenger train speed limits. Amtrak’s plan must also contain milestones and target dates for completion of action plan items. FRA must approve or disapprove Amtrak’s plan within 15 days of the plan’s submission to FRA.
   
• By June 20th, Amtrak must begin to install additional wayside signage throughout its NEC system alerting engineers and conductors of the maximum authorized passenger train speed, with particular emphasis on additional signage at the curve locations where significant speed reductions occur. (Amtrak must identify the locations where it intends to install the additional wayside speed limit signs in its action plan, and must notify FRA when installation of the signs is completed.)

FRA instructed Amtrak that prior to restarting service, the railroad would have to complete the code change at Frankford Junction. Following my direction, Amtrak modified its signal system near the curve before resuming passenger train service through Philadelphia on May 18, 2015.

Amtrak has also provided FRA a list of all curves on the NEC and the applicable speed differentials for those curves, and stated to FRA that they have already begun work to make ATC System modifications at certain higher risk curves that they have identified.

POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL (PTC)

Positive Train Control technology is the single most important railroad safety technological development in more than a century. The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) mandated that the technology be implemented on certain railroads and routes by December 31, 2015. FRA feels strongly that the deadline of December 31, 2015, is an important mandate for the implementation of PTC and our agency intends to enforce it.

Prior to the May 12th derailment, and since the incident, the FRA has worked diligently to assist railroads with PTC implementation planning and execution. We will continue to do so until every Class 1, intercity passenger, and commuter railroad has implemented PTC successfully. I have established a PTC Implementation Team that is aggressively managing this critical, Congressionally-mandated safety technology that will reduce the risk of human factor caused accidents and save lives.

For more than three years, FRA has been sounding the alarm that most railroads have not made sufficient progress to meet the December 2015 deadline. We have noted that the certification and installation of PTC systems are significant undertakings. FRA even highlighted its concerns about PTC implementation in its August 2012 PTC report to Congress, as well as in the GROW AMERICA Act (3).

FRA has long stated that a lack of public sector funding may cause unwanted delays in fully implementing PTC. FRA has requested funding for PTC development and implementation grants in every budget request dating back to Fiscal Year (FY) 2011. For the past two years, as part of the GROW AMERICA Act, FRA has requested $825 million to assist commuter railroads with the implementation of PTC, as well as additional funding to aid with the implementation of PTC on Amtrak’s national network.

FRA will send a follow up report to the Congress in June, as called for by the House Committee on Appropriations.

Despite a lack of funding directed to commuter railroads, FRA is using the resources it has available now to assist railroads in implementing PTC. For example, FRA issued a $967.1 million loan through the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the nation’s largest commuter railroad provider, to facilitate the deployment of the technology.

In recent months, stakeholders and the Congress have asked FRA for guidance on how to approach concerns about railroads not meeting the mandated deadline. To address those concerns, the GROW AMERICA Act the Department submitted to Congress in April 2014 and March 2015 proposed that FRA be granted authority to review, approve, and certify PTC Safety Plans on an individual basis. FRA asked for this authority in order to ensure railroads were raising the bar on safety and have appropriate back stops in place even as they continue to work towards full implementation.

Positive Train Control Technology Description

Positive Train Control refers to an integrated set of advanced technologies, that when fully and properly configured, can prevent certain accidents caused by human factors including (1) train-to-train collisions; (2) over-speed derailments; (3) incursions into established work zones; and (4) the movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position.

PTC systems use digital radio communications, Global Positioning System (GPS), and fixed wayside signal systems to send and receive a continuous stream of data about the location, direction, and speed of trains. Such systems process this information in real time to aid dispatchers and trains crews in safely and efficiently managing train movements through automatic application of train brakes whenever the crew of a train, for whatever reason, fails to properly operate within the limits of its authority.

All PTC systems consist of four basic subsystems: Office; Wayside; Onboard; and Communications. Two basic PTC systems are being adopted by the majority of railroads in North America reflecting two different technical approaches to achieving the required functional capabilities. PTC systems can be "Vital" or "Non-Vital," and may be "Overlay" or "Standalone" but whichever technology or configuration is used, the system must provide an equivalent or higher level of operating safety than that which it replaces.

PTC systems must also provide for interoperability in a manner that allows for equipped locomotives traversing another railroad’s PTC-equipped territories to communicate with and respond to that other railroad’s PTC system, including uninterrupted movements over property boundaries. With limited exceptions and exclusions, PTC is required to be installed and implemented on Class I railroad main lines--lines with 5 million or more gross tons annually – over which any poisonous or toxic by inhalation hazardous materials are transported. By statute, the technology is also mandated on any railroad’s main line over which regularly scheduled passenger intercity or commuter operations are conducted. It is currently estimated this will equate to approximately 70,000 route miles of track and will involve approximately 20,000 locomotives.

HUMAN FACTOR ISSUES

Simply put, human factors include all the individual and group behaviors and activities that affect railroad system performance. While railroad safety overall has improved, human factors continue to be the leading cause of train accidents, accounting for 38 percent of all train accidents in FY 2014.

Our human factors efforts have focused on: (1) promoting the adoption and enforcement of clear and unambiguous operating rules by railroads; (2) the development and use of effective and consistent training and efficiency testing; (3) fostering strong safety cultures based upon individual and organizational accountability; (4) strengthening fitness for duty requirements; and (5) advancing technological innovations that enhance on the job performance.

During the last several years, FRA has completed several rulemakings, reports, guidance documents, and other actions to address a wide range of human factor issues. All of these are important milestones that guide our ongoing efforts to improve safety in this area:

Rulemakings:

Conductor Certification: Final rule requires a railroad to have a formal program for certifying train conductors and ensure that only those persons who meet minimum Federal safety standards serve as conductors. See 76 Fed. Reg. 69802 (Nov. 9, 2011); 77 Fed. Reg. 6482 (Feb. 8, 2012). Effective Feb. 8, 2012. 49 C.F.R Part 242.

Training, Qualification, and Oversight for Safety-Related Railroad Employees: Final rule establishes minimum training standards for each class or craft of safety-related railroad employees. The rule requires the qualification and documentation of the proficiency of such employees on their knowledge of and ability to comply with Federal railroad safety laws and regulations and the employing railroad company’s rules and procedures implementing those laws and regulations. See 79 Fed. Reg. 66459 (Nov. 7, 2014). Effective Jan. 6, 2015. 49 C.F.R Part 243.

Critical Incident Stress Plans: Final rule mandates that certain railroads (each Class I railroad, intercity passenger railroad, and commuter railroad) have a plan that may help mitigate the long-term negative effects of critical incidents upon railroad employees and the impact of performing safety-sensitive duties in the days following such incidents, when the associated stress may hinder their ability to perform such duties safely. See 79 Fed. Reg. 16218 (Mar. 25, 2014). Effective June 23, 2014. 49 C.F.R Part 272.

Hours of Service of Railroad Employees; Substantive Regulations for Train Employees Providing Commuter and Intercity Rail Passenger Transportation; Conforming Amendments to Recordkeeping Requirements: Final Rule draws on detailed research into the causes of train operator fatigue and analysis of thousands of operator work patterns. FRA also published in the Federal Register three detailed statements of agency policy and interpretation to clarify the hours of service laws as amended by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. See Final Rule 76 FR 50360 (Aug. 12, 2011). Effective Oct. 15, 2011. 49 C.F.R Part 228. Interpretations issued: 74 Fed. Reg. 30665 (June 26, 2009); 77 Fed. Reg. 12408 (Feb. 29, 2012); 78 Fed. Reg. 58830 (Sept. 24, 2013).

Restrictions on Railroad Operating Employees’ Use of Cellular Telephones and Other Electronic Devices: Final rule prohibits distracted operation of trains supplemented by an FRA-led industry-wide initiative to combat the dangers of electronic device distraction in the railroad workplace. See 75 Fed. Reg. 59580 (Sept. 27, 2010). Effective Mar. 28, 2011. 49 C.F.R Part 220.

Railroad Workplace Safety; Adjacent-Track On-Track Safety for Roadway Workers: Final rule requires adjacent-track protection for certain roadway work groups. See 79 Fed. Reg. 1743 (Jan. 10, 2014). Effective July 1, 2014. 49 C.F.R Part 214.

The following are additional regulatory actions that are under development:

Control of Alcohol and Drug Use: Coverage of Maintenance of Way Employees, Retrospective Regulatory Review-Based Amendments: Proposed Rule to extend FRA’s alcohol and drug regulations to maintenance of way employees, contractors, and subcontractors. Also, makes other substantive amendments that either respond to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations or update and clarify the alcohol and drug regulations based on a retrospective analysis. See 79 Fed. Reg. 43830 (July 28, 2014). 49 C.F.R Part 219.

Railroad System Safety Programs: FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in 2012 that proposed to require commuter and intercity passenger railroads to develop and implement a system safety program (SSP) to improve the safety of their operations. As proposed in the NPRM, an SSP would be a structured program with proactive processes and procedures developed and implemented by commuter and intercity passenger railroads to identify and mitigate or eliminate hazards and the resulting risks on each railroad’s system. A draft final rule is in review in the Department.

Train Crew Staffing: Potential Actions that will seek to address any safety risks posed to railroad employees, the general public, and the environment by one-person train crews.

Inward- and Outward-Facing Recording Devices Mounted in Controlling Locomotive Cabs: FRA is preparing a proposed rulemaking addressing the installation and use of recording devices in locomotive cabs.

Fatigue Management Programs: FRA is considering taking actions to mitigate the risks associated with fatigue-related safety hazards.

In addition to the completed and ongoing regulatory activities cited above, FRA is aggressively advancing proactive safety-based programs that analyze risks, identify hazards, and put in place customized plans to eliminate those risks. These include the Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C3RS) and Clear Signal for Action.

Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C3RS)
C3RS is an FRA-funded voluntary program that improves safety by using proven practices like hazard identification, risk mitigation, and continuous safety improvements. It embodies positive safety culture elements. It is based on learning about potentially unsafe conditions, or close call events, that pose the risk of more serious consequences. There are eight railroads participating in C3RS (1 – intercity passenger, 5 – commuter, 1 – short line, and 1- Class I). The program relies upon third party collection and analysis of anonymized reports of near misses or close calls that could have resulted in an accident or incident but did not. Several railroads are expanding their participation in C3RS to other crafts. In addition to FRA, stakeholders include labor organizations, railroads, and the National Aeronautical and Space Administration. C3RS provides a foundation upon which participants can learn what happened in close call incidents industrywide and use the information to prevent similar or more serious incidents from recurring.

Clear Signal for Action (CSA)
CSA is a behavior-based safety process built on the behavioral research of Dr. Thomas Krause. CSA is an information gathering methodology that uses applied behavioral analysis to achieve continuous improvement in safety performance. CSA uses confidential data gathered by peer observers to measure safety performance. Peer observers gather data to identify and define critical safety-related behaviors and the frequency of these behaviors, and provide peer-to-peer feedback, as well as input into the overall safety improvement process. Overall, CSA is a process that targets at-risk behaviors by first identifying and defining those behaviors, and then provides a structure to support the desired change in behavior.

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and answer your questions today. Safety is FRA’s first priority, and we appreciate your attention and focus on issues related to the tragic Amtrak passenger train accident in Philadelphia.

We look forward to working with this Committee to improve our programs and make the American rail network as safe, reliable, and efficient as feasible. I will be happy to respond to your questions.

# # #

1 FRA regulations provide, in part, that it is unlawful to "[o]perate a train or locomotive at a speed which exceeds the maximum authorized limit by at least 10 miles per hour." 49 CFR 240.305(a)(2).

2 EO 31’s requirements will not apply where Amtrak’s Positive Train Control System (Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System II (ACSES II)) is already in use on the NEC. Among other features, ACSES II enforces civil speed restrictions that are in place at locations such as curves and bridges.

3The Secretary of Transportation submitted the GROW AMERICA Act to Congress on March 30, 2015. "GROW AMERICA" stands for "Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and Work with Accelerated Mobility, Efficiency, and Rebuilding of Infrastructure and Communities throughout America."

Passenger Rail Reauthorization: The Future of the Northeast Corridor

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF

SARAH FEINBERG,
ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL RAILROAD 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
U.S. SENATE

“PASSENGER RAIL REAUTHORIZATioN: THE FUTURE OF the NORTHEAST CORRIDOR”

May 4, 2015

Chairman Fischer, Ranking Member Booker, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to New Jersey to discuss passenger rail, the Northeast Corridor (NEC), and the Administration’s surface transportation reauthorization proposal, GROW AMERICA. [1]  Like this Subcommittee, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) understands the value and importance of the NEC as a national asset.

More than six years ago, this Committee led the development of two pieces of legislation that have helped to redefine the role of intercity passenger rail in the United States and usher in a new era of critical safety reforms – the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) and the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA).  Significant progress has been made since implementation of this legislation, and the rail industry has changed dramatically.  However, a significant amount of work remains to further improve the Nation’s rail network, and as the U.S. Department of Transportation’s recent Beyond Traffic report identified, there are numerous transportation challenges facing our Nation, including:

• Population Growth – America’s population will grow by 70 million by 2045.  The majority of this growth will be concentrated in roughly a dozen megaregions.  The national transportation system must prepare to meet this increased demand.  Increasingly, as evidenced by record ridership numbers, Americans are choosing to travel by passenger rail.  In addition to providing mobility and travel choices for this growing population, we must also identify solutions to accommodate resulting freight demand, which is anticipated to increase 45 percent during this timeframe.
   
• Infrastructure Deficit – As our population continues to grow, so too does the use of our transportation infrastructure.  The funding necessary to maintain and improve our transportation system has not kept pace with this usage and the burdens placed upon it, which has led to a widening infrastructure deficit as more and more transportation assets fall into a state of disrepair.  The World Economic Forum ranks the United States 16th in overall infrastructure, down from 7th in 1999 and below several western European, Asian, and Middle Eastern countries.
   
• Congestion and Mobility – Highway and aviation congestion continues to rise, with an estimated economic impact growing from $24 billion in 1982 to $121 billion in 2011 in lost time, productivity, and fuel.  In many places with the worst congestion, expanding airports and highways is difficult, as land is limited and environmental/community impacts are significant.  On average, Americans spend more than 40 hours stuck in traffic each year.
   
• Environmental Protection – Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released its 20th Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, which found that the U.S. emitted 5.9 percent more greenhouse gases in 2013 than it did in 1990, with emissions increasing 2 percent from 2012 to 2013.  In addition, 27 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are now from the transportation sector.  Increased emissions will amplify the existing health threats the Nation faces, which can have substantial impacts on quality of life and the economy.
   
• Changing Demographics – As the U.S. population grows, it is also changing.  A large number of Americans are entering their retirement years and are choosing to drive less often, particularly over longer distances. Only 15 percent of Americans older than 65 drive regularly, and that rate declines to just 6 percent for those older than 75.  At the same time, younger generations of Americans are choosing to drive both less often and for fewer miles than previous generations, and are obtaining driver’s licenses at record low rates.  This cohort uses public transportation more frequently than older Americans and has different expectations for the composition of their transportation system.

GROW AMERICA

In order to help meet these challenges, Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx transmitted the GROW AMERICA Act to Congress on March 30, 2015.  GROW AMERICA is a six-year, $478 billion multi-modal reauthorization proposal intended to comprehensively address our surface transportation needs.  The proposal includes an integrated strategy to enhance rail safety, maintain current rail services and infrastructure, and expand and improve the rail network to accommodate growing passenger and freight demand.

National High-Performance Rail Network

GROW AMERICA proposes close to $29 billion over six years to invest in a National High-Performance Rail System, which allocates funds to two new programs aimed at promoting market-based investments to enhance and grow rail:

• Current Passenger Rail Service Program – Over six years, GROW AMERICA will provide $14.1 billion to maintain the current rail network in a state of good repair and continue existing services.  The proposed Current Passenger Rail Service Program fully funds the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and for the first time organizes grants for passenger rail services by lines of business:  
   
  • $4.425 billion to bring Northeast Corridor infrastructure and equipment into a state of good repair, thus enabling future growth and service improvements;
  • $645 million to replace obsolete equipment on State-supported corridors and to facilitate efficient transition to financial control for these corridors to States, as required by Section 209 of PRIIA;
  • $4.5 billion to continue operations of the Nation’s important long-distance routes, which provide a vital transportation alternative to both urban and rural communities;
  • $2.43 billion to improve efficiency of the Nation’s “backbone” rail facilities, make payments on Amtrak’s legacy debt, and implement Positive Train Control (PTC) systems on Amtrak routes; and
  • $2.1 billion to bring stations into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
     
• Rail Service Improvement Program – GROW AMERICA also provides an additional $14.4 billion over six years to expand and improve America’s rail network to accommodate growing travel demand, which includes:
   
  • $9.45 billion to develop high-performance passenger rail networks through construction of new corridors, substantial improvements to existing corridors, and mitigation of passenger train congestion at critical chokepoints;
  • $3.05 billion to assist commuter rail lines in implementing PTC systems;
  • $1.5 billion to help mitigate the negative impacts of rail in local communities through rail line relocation, grade crossing enhancements, investments in short line railroad infrastructure, and training and technical assistance to help local governments better coordinate with railroads regarding operational and safety issues; and
  • $450 million to develop comprehensive plans that will guide future investments in the Nation’s rail system and to develop the workforce and technology necessary for advancing America’s rail industry.  

In addition to establishing these new grant programs, GROW AMERICA proposes a number of improvements to the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program.  Specifically, GROW AMERICA proposes to allow FRA to subsidize RRIF loan costs in an effort to make the program more accessible, particularly to resource-constrained short line railroads.  With this change, the RRIF Program would be able to employ Federal subsidies like the Department’s Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program, whereas now RRIF relies only on payments from borrowers.

Dedicated and Predictable Funding for Rail

Congress has for decades funded highway infrastructure and safety, transit, and airport programs through multi-year authorizations that provide dedicated funding.  Rail lacks a comparable stream of Federal revenue.  As a result, passenger rail capital investments have generally failed to keep up with the needs of existing equipment fleet and infrastructure, leading to a backlog of state of good repair and other basic infrastructure issues on our rail network across the country. 

For the first time, GROW AMERICA would establish a Rail Account within the Transportation Trust Fund to provide funding certainty for rail.  Predictable, dedicated funding will enable States, local governments, railroads, and other stakeholders to more effectively plan and make large-scale infrastructure investments.  A consistent Federal funding program, leveraged by State and local support, can also better attract private markets to invest in the transformative transportation projects needed to move America forward.  This approach has been affirmed internationally, where major rail systems have been planned and developed through a predictable multi-year funding program.

Freight Rail

America’s freight rail network plays a critical role in supporting the stability and growth of the U.S. economy.  Freight rail is a $70 billion industry that is relied upon by various sectors across the economy.  Outside of the NEC – where track and infrastructure is predominantly owned by Amtrak, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts – most intercity passenger rail services operate over privately-owned freight railroads.  The GROW AMERICA proposal looks to advance investments and policies that create “win-wins” that benefit and strengthen both passenger and freight rail.  This includes authorizing a comprehensive evaluation of the operational, institutional, and legal structures that would best support high-performance passenger and freight rail services that operate over shared-use infrastructure.  Reassessing these parameters – many of which have been in place for decades – is needed to better accommodate growing demand and address the paradigm shift proposed in GROW AMERICA of providing predictable, dedicated funding for rail.      

GROW AMERICA will also support our freight rail network by providing dedicated capital funds for short line railroads through the new Local Rail Facilities and Safety Program under the Rail Service Improvement Program.  Short line railroads often provide the critical first- and last-mile connections between shippers and the national main line freight rail network.  However, many short line railroads lack the resources to adequately maintain and improve their infrastructure.  FRA believes Federal assistance is required to assist short line railroads and improve the fluidity of our freight rail network.

Continuous Safety Improvements

Through RSIA, Congress mandated that PTC be implemented on certain railroads and routes by December 31, 2015.  FRA believes the implementation of PTC is the single most important safety advancement being implemented by the rail industry today.  Although the railroads are working diligently towards implementation of PTC systems, FRA is concerned that the vast majority of railroads will not be able to meet the deadline. 

In recent months, both Members of Congress and industry representatives have expressed significant interest in an alternative path forward on PTC implementation in light of the fact that most railroads will not be able to comply with the statutory deadline.  In GROW AMERICA, FRA has proposed that it be given the authority to provide limited extensions to permit some latitude in those circumstances where unforeseen events delay a railroad’s ability to fully implement PTC.  FRA has also indicated its willingness to employ enforcement discretion in those situations where railroads have been consistently working towards PTC implementation but will not be able to comply with the current deadline. 

In addition to addressing PTC implementation, GROW AMERICA will improve the predictability of work schedules for railroad operating employees and prevent operator fatigue by granting FRA full rulemaking authority to replace outdated hours-of-service laws with scientifically-based regulations.  GROW AMERICA also promotes uniform operating rules for the industry by requiring harmonization of railroads’ operating rules in small geographic areas where two or more railroads host joint operations.  This provision could improve safety by assisting railroad employees to better understand and comply with another host railroad’s operating rules, as well as reduce railroads’ rule training and development cost.   

Transparency, Accountability, and Effective Planning

Achieving the priorities contained in GROW AMERICA can only occur if these programs and initiatives are effectively managed and deliver public benefits and service improvements through a process that is transparent to the American people.  The roles and responsibilities of the Federal government, States, Amtrak, freight railroads, and other stakeholders must be clear and based on sound public policy.  One of the principles of the grant programs contained in GROW AMERICA is to organize funding for current passenger rail services by business lines and invest Amtrak’s NEC operating surpluses back into the corridor to address NEC infrastructure needs.  This structure will improve transparency and accountability for taxpayer investments by aligning costs, revenues, and Federal grants to business lines to better ensure that our investments are advancing the Nation’s goals and objectives for rail services.

Similarly, infrastructure investments are most often delivered on time, within budget, and achieve their full intended scope when they are the result of a rigorous planning process.  GROW AMERICA will require Amtrak to engage in annual five-year operating and capital planning to focus on the long-term needs of its business lines.  Additional capital asset plans will describe investment priorities and implementation strategies and identify specific projects to address the backlog of state of good repair needs, recapitalization/ongoing maintenance needs, upgrades to support service enhancements, and business initiatives with a defined return on investment.  GROW AMERICA also emphasizes developing rail plans in the context of a broader regional framework that can help to better integrate rail projects with other transportation modes, promote greater involvement by stakeholders, identify priorities for limited Federal funding, and yield more cost-effective investments.  Establishing a framework for improved regional rail planning is a key component of the GROW AMERICA proposal.

The Northeast Corridor

There is no better place to emphasize the need for a multi-year reauthorization for rail and what the Administration is trying to accomplish with GROW AMERICA than right here in Newark.  The NEC is one of the most important transportation assets in the United States.  The lifeblood to the regional economy, the NEC carries more than 750,000 people each day on Amtrak and commuter services, with Amtrak setting a new NEC ridership record in fiscal year (FY) 2014 with 11.6 million passengers.  The residents and commuters that utilize the NEC to travel to and from work each day contribute more than $50 billion to the national economy each year.  The NEC is also one of the most complex transportation assets in the country, running through 8 States and Washington, D.C. and hosting more than 2,000 daily trains on 8 commuter railroads, 4 freight railroads, and Amtrak.

Despite the important role that the NEC plays in the lives of millions of Americans and our economy, many segments of the corridor operate at or near capacity and are in need of major repairs.  The NEC requires nearly $1.5 billion per year over 15 years just to bring the corridor into a state of good repair and maintain it in that condition.  The average age of the NEC’s major bridges and tunnels is approximately 110 years old.  These assets have remained in service well beyond their expected useful life and today require extensive maintenance and are major sources of corridor delays.

NEC Commission

Congress recognized the opportunities, constraints and challenges facing the NEC in the passage of PRIIA by establishing the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission (NEC Commission).  Composed of members from each of the NEC States, Amtrak, and the U.S. DOT – as well as other non-voting stakeholders – the NEC Commission was charged by Congress with developing a cost allocation formula for determining and allocating costs, revenues, and compensation for users of the NEC.

The NEC Commission has been successful in promoting mutual cooperation among a myriad of stakeholders and public officials with differing political persuasions, each having to balance parochial interests with the greater good of the corridor.  In December 2014, the NEC Commission members voted to approve a cost allocation policy.  Set to take effect in FY 2016, the policy establishes the methodology for allocating the approximately $500 million in operating costs and $425 million in capital costs that are shared among NEC commuter rail operators and Amtrak.  The capital contributions represent the annual funding needed to maintain assets in a state of good repair, if not for the backlog of deferred investment needs.  The policy also provides recommendations for addressing the backlog of state of good repair needs and improving collaboration and project delivery along the corridor.

Building on the cost allocation policy, in April 2015 the NEC Commission released the first joint five-year capital plan for investing in the corridor.  The plan integrates the priorities of the four infrastructure owners, nine operators, and government agencies along the corridor; identifying both funded and unfunded components (should additional capital dollars be made available).  The plan proposes that the Federal government assume the responsibility for funding the elimination of the state of good repair backlog on the NEC, which is consistent with the Administration’s Current Passenger Rail Services Program under GROW AMERICA.     

NEC FUTURE and Capital Investments

In addition to establishing the NEC Commission, PRIIA created new discretionary grant programs for rail development and subsequently appropriated more than $10 billion for the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program.  FRA utilized a portion of these funds to initiate the NEC FUTURE program, a comprehensive planning effort to define, evaluate, and prioritize future passenger rail investments along the NEC.  This FRA-led study will produce the necessary environmental and service planning documents for establishing the corridor’s future vision and enabling further public investment.  NEC FUTURE is expected to be completed in 2016 and will have a lasting legacy in guiding the corridor’s development.

Through the HSIPR Program, FRA has invested nearly $1 billion in additional capital and planning funds on the NEC mainline between Washington, D.C. – New York City – Boston, including:

• Amtrak – $450 million:  to increase capacity, reliability, and speed along one of the NEC’s most heavily used segments (New Brunswick to Trenton, NJ).
   
• New York – $295 million:  to reduce congestion and improve on-time performance by allowing Amtrak trains to bypass Harold Interlocking in Queens, NY.
   
• Maryland – $60 million:  to complete preliminary engineering and environmental work to replace the nearly 150-year-old Baltimore and Potomac tunnel.
   
• New Jersey – $38.5 million:  to complete final design to replace the 100-year-old Portal Bridge over the Hackensack River.
   
• New York – $30 million:  to complete the first phase of construction for the new Moynihan Station, which will increase capacity and relieve congestion at Penn Station.
   
• Maryland – $22 million:  to complete preliminary engineering and environmental work to replace the century-old Susquehanna River Bridge, a source of frequent delays caused by emergency maintenance requirements.

With the HSIPR Program funding authorized and appropriated by Congress, FRA has also funded nearly $450 million in projects located on the branch lines that provide critical connections between the NEC and the national rail network, including:

• Philadelphia to Harrisburg – $66 million:  to eliminate grade crossings and upgrade signaling systems to improve safety and service reliability.
   
• New York to Albany – $68 million:  to double track the route, improve grade crossings, and complete engineering and environmental analysis to reduce congestion and improve safety.
   
• New Haven to Springfield – $191 million:  to upgrade track and install signaling systems in Connecticut to increase speeds and reduce trip times.
   
• D.C. to Richmond – $122 million:  to complete track construction and planning and environmental studies to upgrade passenger rail service that connects the Northeast Corridor to Southeast High-Speed Rail to Charlotte, NC.

Having made these initial investments with HSIPR funding appropriated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, the GROW AMERICA Act is ready to move forward with additional critical NEC projects as soon as Congress approves new funding.

Hurricane Sandy

In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy caused extensive damage along the entire eastern seaboard.  Amtrak suffered damage to much of its NEC transportation infrastructure, particularly the infrastructure in and around New York City and northern New Jersey.  Specifically, Hurricane Sandy caused significant flooding in and associated damage to Amtrak’s existing Hudson River tunnels, resulting in the cessation of all Amtrak NEC intercity passenger rail and New Jersey Transit service into New York City for approximately five days, affecting nearly 600,000 daily riders and causing substantial economic harm.

Hurricane Sandy served as a stark reminder of the importance of the NEC to the region and the need for resiliency for our vital transportation assets.  The NEC Commission estimates that the loss of the NEC for a single day costs the U.S. $100 million in travel delays and lost productivity.

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, Congress enacted the FY 2013 Disaster Assistance Supplemental Appropriations Bill (P.L. 113-2), which provided a wide range of assistance for those affected by the storm and flooding.  Amtrak received approximately $30 million for repairs and $235 million to fund the first two phases of the Hudson Yards Encasement Project, the first step in creating new Trans-Hudson River rail tunnels to increase capacity and provide redundancy into the New York Penn Station/Moynihan complex.  Once the new tunnels are constructed, the existing century-old tunnels could be closed off in order to retrofit them with flood prevention measures and to perform other necessary upgrades and repairs, while still maintaining direct access to Penn Station.

Conclusion

Thank you again for inviting me to testify on this very important topic.  FRA is proud of its accomplishments in implementing PRIIA and RSIA, particularly in light of the laws’ sweeping provisions and the FRA’s concurrent need to implement and administer the more than $10 billion in HSIPR Program funding appropriated by Congress in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act.  The Administration is encouraged and expresses its gratitude that this committee is once again stepping to the forefront to develop a new rail reauthorization proposal that will help improve and grow our rail network to meet the 21st century transportation challenges facing the United States.

American passengers and shippers are continuing to choose rail more than ever before.  Over the last decade, Amtrak ridership increased 29 percent, from 24 million passengers in FY 2005 to 30.9 million passengers in FY 2014.  On the freight rail side, U.S. rail intermodal freight volumes set a new record in 2014 with nearly 13.5 million containers and trailers, up 5.2 percent over the previous record achieved in 2013.  Rail safety – FRA’s top priority – has also improved dramatically in the last decade, as evidenced by total train accidents declining by 46 percent, total derailments declining by 47 percent, and total highway-rail grade crossing accidents declining by 24 percent.

FRA, States, Amtrak, commuter railroads, other industry stakeholders, and the American people are ready to take the next step.  Many of the nearly 150 projects initiated under the HSIPR Program are complete or nearing completion.  The HSIPR Program and independent State and regional efforts have created a strong pipeline of planning, environmental, and engineering projects that are now ready for construction.  This includes the critical Portal Bridge project just a few miles from where we are meeting today.  Failure to act on these shovel-ready projects in a timely manner often results in increased costs as environmental analyses and engineering designs have to be reevaluated after periods of dormancy.

FRA strongly supports the proposals contained in GROW AMERICA, and I look forward to continuing to work with Congress to enact a comprehensive surface transportation bill that provides robust and dedicated funding to strengthen rail transportation.      

Oversight of the Ongoing Rail, Pipeline, and Hazardous Materials Rulemakings

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF

SARAH FEINBERG,
ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

“OVERSIGHT OF THE ONGOING RAIL, PIPELINE, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RULEMAKINGS”

April 14, 2015

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the safety of our Nation’s railroads.  Historically, rail has been a safe and reliable mode of transportation, and one that American passengers and shippers are choosing more than ever before.  

• Over the last decade, Amtrak ridership increased 29 percent, from 24 million passengers in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 to 30.9 million passengers in FY 2014;
• In FY 2014, Amtrak set a new ridership record on the Northeast Corridor with 11.6 million passengers, while eight other Amtrak routes also set new ridership records; and
• In 2014, U.S. rail intermodal freight volumes set a new record with nearly 13.5 million containers and trailers, up 5.2 percent over the previous record achieved in 2013.

The Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) mission is to enable the safe, reliable, and efficient movement of people and goods for a strong America, now and in the future.  We are a data-driven agency.  We closely monitor data and trends to identify, reduce, and eliminate risks.

Today, I will present an overview of the railroad industry’s safety performance over the last decade, and I will present an overview of the status of outstanding regulatory actions FRA is currently completing.  Finally, I will discuss the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT or Department) actions in response to recent accidents and how we are addressing the safety challenges ahead, including through the GROW AMERICA Act.[1] 

The Railroad Industry’s Safety Record

FRA’s top priority is safety.  In the ten years from FY 2005 through FY 2014 (the latest year for which complete data is available)--

• Total train accidents declined by 46 percent.
• Total derailments declined by 47 percent.
• Total highway-rail grade crossing (grade crossing) accidents declined by 24 percent.

These safety improvements have resulted in 14-percent fewer fatalities overall (906 fatalities to 773 fatalities–94 percent of which are trespassing or grade crossing related), 52-percent fewer employee fatalities, and 6.5-percent fewer injuries (9,386 injuries to 8,774 injuries) over 10 years.

The chart and table below illustrate a decade of safety improvement.

Ten-year Downward Trend for Number of Train Accidents (FY 2005-FY2014)
*Fiscal Year Representing Absolute Numbers

Ten-year Trends for Railroad Accident/Incident Rates, by Accident/Incident Cause
*Accident/Incident, Train Accident, and Grade Crossing Incident Numbers Are Normalized by Million Train-Miles for Fiscal Year.

Non-Accident Hazmat Releases Are Normalized by 200 Million Hazmat Ton-Miles for Fiscal Year.

A decade of steady improvement in safety outcomes, along with significant reductions in the rates of all types of accidents since FY 2008, is strong evidence that FRA’s approach to oversight and enforcement is effective.  Despite this good news, there are still many risks to mitigate, and we have a long way to go to reach zero accidents, injuries, and fatalities.   

An Overview of Outstanding Regulatory Actions

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) mandated that FRA, as the Secretary’s designee, complete an unprecedented 43 discrete tasks, including the publication of final rules, guidance documents, model State laws, studies, and reports, as well as three types of annual reports and hundreds of periodic accident reporting audits. 

Today, FRA has 10 remaining RSIA-mandated, non-periodic items left to complete.  The majority of these are final rules that we are currently working with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on completing.  Appendix 1 lists the RSIA-mandated rulemakings, non-periodic reports and studies, guidance, and model State laws that FRA has completed as of April 1, 2015. 

Currently, FRA has identified five significant rulemakings as priority rulemakings for the agency, including three that are at the final rule stage.  These rulemakings include: 

• A Final Rule on Railroad System Safety Programs. This RSIA rulemaking would improve the safety of passenger railroad operations through structured, proactive processes and procedures developed by intercity passenger and commuter railroads.  It would require each of these passenger railroads to establish and implement a customized, risk reduction program, called a System Safety Program, supported by certain FRA-approved plans that would systematically identify, evaluate, and mitigate risks on its railroad in order to reduce the number and rates of railroad accidents, incidents, injuries and fatalities.  A draft final rule is in review in the Department.
   
• A Final Rule on Risk Reduction Programs.  This RSIA rulemaking is the freight-railroad counterpart of the System Safety rulemaking.  This rulemaking would require each major (i.e., Class I) freight railroad to establish and implement a customized Risk Reduction Program, also supported by certain FRA-approved plans.  The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in this proceeding was published February 27, 2015, and public comments are due by April 28, 2015.  Following the close of the comment period, FRA will prepare a final rule.
   
• A Final Rule on Securement of Unattended Equipment.  This rulemaking would amend the brake system safety standards for freight and other non-passenger trains and equipment to ensure better compliance with the requirements relating to the securement of unattended equipment.  Specifically, the NPRM in this rulemaking, published in September 2014, would codify some of the requirements already included in FRA’s Emergency Order Establishing Additional Requirements for Attendance and Securement of Certain Freight Trains and Vehicles on Mainline Track or Mainline Siding Outside of a Yard or Terminal.  78 FR 48218 (Aug. 7, 2013).  Amendments to FRA’s existing regulations would include additional securement requirements for unattended equipment, primarily for those that include cars containing certain hazardous materials, and additional communication requirements relating to job briefings and securement verification.
   
• An NPRM on Train Crew Staffing.  This rulemaking would propose train crew staffing requirements to address the safety risks posed to railroad employees, the general public, and the environment.  
   
• An NPRM on Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. This rulemaking would propose amendments to 49 C.F.R. Part 238 to update existing safety standards for passenger rail equipment.  Specifically, the proposed rulemaking would add standards for alternative compliance with requirements for Tier I passenger equipment, increase the maximum authorized speed for Tier II passenger equipment, and add requirements for a new Tier III category of passenger equipment needed to support the procurement of high speed train sets.

Additionally, FRA is committing significant resources to assist the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) with the development of its final rule on high-hazard flammable trains.   

Further, there are additional regulatory actions under development at FRA.  These include the following:

• A final rule on Miscellaneous Amendments to Roadway Worker Protections;
• An RSIA final rule extending the alcohol and drug regulations to maintenance of way (MOW) employees and contractors;
• A final rule on Passenger Train Door safety;
• A final rule on rail equipment safety glazing;
• An RSIA NPRM on Fatigue Management Programs;
• An NPRM on Engineer Qualification Revisions;
• An NPRM on Hours of Service Recordkeeping Amendments; and
• An NPRM on Accident Reporting Threshold Calculation.  

Response to Accidents

Last year we conducted 71,380 compliance inspections and 100 accident investigations.  The information learned as a result of these activities, along with other key data and research, plays an important role in our ability to identify future risks and how to mitigate those risks or eliminate them entirely.  The data also inform our approach to necessary enforcement actions. 

In recent months, the safe shipment of crude oil, passenger safety, and highway-rail grade crossing safety have attracted widespread attention after several high-profile incidents.  Additionally, the installation and implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) remains at the forefront of advancing safety.  The following section reviews initiatives FRA has taken to address safety challenges in these areas. 

SAFE TRANSPORTATION OF ENERGY PRODUCTS

Transportation of crude oil by rail has increased significantly.  Between 2009 and 2013 (the last year for which data is available), the rail shipment of crude oil has increased by 4,000 percent.  Much of this traffic is driven by new production from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota. 

This is a nationwide transportation safety concern as crude oil and other energy products are shipped from production areas to refineries on the East, West, and Gulf Coasts. The consequences of an accident involving containers of crude oil can be catastrophic, as demonstrated by the accident in Lac-Mégantic, Québec, which killed 47 people.

Since the Lac-Mégantic derailment on July 6, 2013, there have been 22 subsequent train accidents in the United States involving trains carrying crude oil.  In response to these increased hazards, the Department is pursuing a holistic, all-of-the-above approach to ensure the safe movement of energy products in America.  We believe this comprehensive approach must include enhancing the integrity of the tank car itself, strengthening the safety requirements of railroad operations, and taking whatever steps are possible to improve the safety of the product itself.   

PHMSA and FRA have undertaken more than two dozen actions to enhance the safe transport of crude oil since December 2012, including issuing emergency orders, safety advisories, safety alerts, hosting public hearings, putting shippers and carriers on notice, as well as providing training for emergency first responders.

To address this growing challenge, FRA has requested 45 new staff positions dedicated to the Safe Transportation of Energy Products (STEP) in its FY 2016 Budget.  This includes creation of five new Crude Oil Route Manager positions to focus on the Nation’s main energy corridors.  For the field, FRA requests 40 dedicated safety inspectors and rail safety specialists to oversee railroads’ crude oil safety performance and to ensure that next generation tank cars are built to applicable standards.  In addition, FRA seeks additional funds to expand the coverage of its Automated Track Inspection Program (ATIP) on routes with heavy traffic of energy products and to fully implement the Crude Oil Route Track Examination (CORTEX) program, which involves increased track inspections focused specifically on crude oil routes. 

Oversight and enforcement are important strategies for making crude oil transportation by rail safer, and so are improving infrastructure and investing in capital.  Short lines and local governments in particular require assistance making such investments.  FRA’s proposed $250 million Local Rail Facilities and Safety grant program, part of the Rail Service Improvement Program, would fund safety projects, including those involving crude oil and energy products. 

For example, the Short Line Safety Institute (Institute) provides safety culture assessments, training and education, and recommendations to improve the safety culture on short line railroads involved in the movement of crude oil.  In FY 2014, FRA’s Office of Research and Development obligated $500,000 to support the development and pilot-testing of the Institute’s safety culture assessments.  In FY 2015, Congress appropriated $2 million to “improve safety practices and safety training for Class II and Class III freight railroads.”   FRA plans to add another $300,000 in available appropriations to this effort, for a total budget of $2.3 million.  This includes a $1.8 million grant to the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) to perform safety assessments and training on short lines that transport crude oil.  Additionally, $100,000 will be awarded to the University of Connecticut to test and validate the safety culture assessment tools and support emerging needs as the pilot phase progresses.  FRA will provide $400,000 to the Department’s Volpe Center to provide a short line safety needs assessment and to evaluate the implementation and impact of the pilot safety assessments.  Volpe will also support ASLRRA in the development of the Institute’s long-term training and education needs. 

PASSENGER RAILROAD SAFETY

The number of intercity passenger rail services and commuter trips is rapidly increasing.  Today, there are more than 500 million railroad passenger trips annually. Protecting the safety and minimizing risks for these passengers as well as railroad crews is a top priority of FRA. 

In the aftermath of four high-profile accidents on the Metro-North Railroad in 2013, FRA took unprecedented action by conducting a thorough, in-depth review of the railroad’s safety culture.  That review highlighted risks that are now managed and mitigated to ensure that policies, processes, and oversight are in place to reduce the risk of accidents in the future. 

For FY 2016, FRA has requested 15 new staff positions to develop and implement risk reduction and system safety programs and provide direct oversight and technical assistance to commuter, shared use, and passenger operations.  These new positions will enable FRA to conduct recurring evaluations of the safety culture of passenger rail providers across the Nation.

Oversight and enforcement are important strategies to ensure passenger rail safety.  In addition, PTC will improve the safety of rail operations by significantly reducing the primary cause of train accidents–human error.  Having heard repeatedly from commuter railroads of the financial challenges they face, a key component of FRA’s FY 2016 budget includes $825 million to assist commuter railroads in achieving full compliance with the statutory mandate to implement PTC. The budget also provides funding to assist with the implementation of PTC on Amtrak routes.

GRADE CROSSING SAFETY AND TRESPASS PREVENTION

For more than a decade, the number of grade crossing collisions has been decreasing.  However, that trend has begun to reverse.  In FY 2014, the number of grade crossing incidents increased by nearly 13 percent over FY 2013 levels, and the number of fatalities at grade crossings increased by 6 percent.  Overall, in FY 2014, grade crossing and trespassing fatalities accounted for 94 percent of all rail-related deaths.  

In the wake of recent incidents near or at grade crossings in California, New York, and North Carolina, FRA launched a multi-faceted campaign to enhance grade crossing safety.  The first initiative of the campaign was geared towards law enforcement agencies, requesting that they increase their presence at grade crossings, issue more citations to drivers that violate traffic laws at crossings, and consider the rapid implementation of best practices for grade crossing safety.   The initial phase of the campaign has been successful, with a number of law enforcement jurisdictions increasing their presence at grade crossings and writing substantially more citations to drivers at crossings.  In New York, for example, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Police Department issued six times as many citations during the first quarter of 2015 as they did for the same period last year.  Most citations are being issued to drivers who drive around warning gates, stop on the tracks, or drive while distracted at grade crossings.

Subsequent phases of the campaign will include increasing public awareness, employing greater use of technology, improved signage, stronger partnerships with States and safety organizations, as well as exploring how additional funding for grade crossing safety can be effectively utilized to improve safety outcomes.  

Similarly, trespass deaths followed the same pattern as grade crossing collisions between FY 2009 and FY 2014.  There was an average of 420 fatalities per year between FY 2009 and FY 2013.  The actual number of trespasser fatalities (473) increased in FY 2014 by 7.7 percent over the previous fiscal year.   Trespassing is a leading cause of rail-related deaths and accounted for 61 percent of all rail-related fatalities in FY 2014.

In the FY 2016 budget, FRA requests 16 grade crossing safety manager and 8 trespass prevention manager positions.  These employees would conduct nationwide safety outreach with the trucking industry, communities, local planners, schools, and others to improve the safety of the nearly 130,000 public grade crossings.  FRA also seeks funds to bring together trespass prevention experts from freight, commuter, and transit railroads to share and develop new prevention initiatives.  Moreover, FRA requests new funds to implement a pilot program to provide targeted and sustained community outreach.

Additionally, the proposed $250 million Local Rail Facilities and Safety grant program will enable local communities to build grade crossing improvements and relocate rail lines from residential neighborhoods or other highly trafficked areas, among other critical improvements.

IMPLEMENTATION OF PTC

The implementation of PTC is the single most important safety advancement facing the rail industry today.  RSIA mandated the technology to be implemented on certain railroads and routes by December 31, 2015. 

With limited exceptions and exclusions, PTC is required to be installed and implemented on Class I railroad main lines -- lines with 5 million or more gross tons annually – over which any poisonous or toxic by inhalation (PIH/TIH) hazardous materials are transported.  By statute, the technology is also mandated on any railroad’s main line over which regularly scheduled passenger intercity or commuter operations are conducted.  It is currently estimated this will equate to approximately 70,000 miles of track and will involve approximately 20,000 locomotives.   

PTC technology is capable of automatically controlling train speeds and movements should a train operator fail to take appropriate action for the conditions at hand.  For example, PTC can force a train to a stop before it passes a signal displaying a “stop” indication, or before diverging on a switch improperly lined, thereby averting a potential collision.  PTC systems required to comply must reliably and functionally prevent: 

• Train-to-train collisions;
• Over-speed derailments;
• Incursion into an established work zone; and
• Movement through a main line switch in the improper position.

PTC systems must also provide for interoperability in a manner that allows for equipped locomotives traversing other railroad’s PTC-equipped territories to communicate with and respond to that railroad’s PTC system, including uninterrupted movements over property boundaries.

Although the railroads subject to the mandate are working diligently towards implementation of PTC systems, FRA is concerned that the vast majority of these railroads will not be able to meet the deadline.  FRA’s August 2012 Report to Congress “Positive Train Control:  Implementation Status, Issues, and Impacts” summarized the major technical and programmatic challenges and obstacles associated with PTC implementation that FRA had identified so far.  Subsequent to the report’s submission, a new issue regarding historic preservation reviews of communications towers required for PTC deployment arose under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  Since then, the FCC has taken steps to address the issues by engaging stakeholders, including FRA, to develop a process to expedite the required historic preservation reviews

Further, commuter rail operations are cash-strapped and unable to attain certain necessities for implementation, such as communications spectrum.

In recent months, significant interest in a path forward to implementing PTC in the face of a statutory deadline that most railroads will not be able to comply with has emerged among both members of Congress and industry representatives.  FRA has proposed that it be granted provisional authority to review, approve, and certify PTC Safety Plans on an individual basis, even though the mandated deadline might be exceeded.  FRA has also indicated its willingness to employ enforcement discretion in those situations where railroads have been consistently working towards PTC implementation but will not be able to comply with the current deadline.  Moreover, FRA has proposed that it be provided the authority to provide limited extensions to any deadline imposed by Congress in order to permit some latitude in those circumstances where unforeseen events delay a railroad’s ability to fully implement PTC.   

In the FY 2015 appropriations law, Congress directed FRA to compile and complete a second report to Congress on PTC implementation.  That report is due in June 2015; however, FRA is working to complete the report and transmit it to Congress sooner.  The report will include a number of additional recommendations and will address issues surrounding the current statutory deadline for PTC implementation.    

How FRA Is Addressing Safety Challenges Ahead

Continuous safety improvement requires a comprehensive strategy designed to eliminate risk. Here is FRA’s strategy:

1. Continuing a rigorous regulatory and inspection program based on strategic use of data;
2. Advancing proactive approaches for early identification and reduction of risk; as well as
3. Capital investments and robust research and development (R&D).

Continuing a Rigorous Regulatory and Inspection program

We will continue this framework for safety oversight and enforcement and improve it.  Data-driven analysis will continue to guide workforce planning and inspection activities.

FRA’s regulatory program improves safety by developing rules based on facts, incident and accident causation analysis, comparison of alternative mitigation measures, and cost-beneficial solutions.  FRA rulemaking considers current and future industry capabilities, compliance burden and cost, and other economic and social realities.  Within this context, FRA will continue to attempt to meet statutory milestones with its available resources.

State rail inspectors are a force multiplier for FRA’s compliance and enforcement efforts.  The State Rail Safety Participation Program consists of 30 States employing 186 safety inspectors in the 5 rail safety inspection disciplines:  motive power and equipment; operating practices; track; signal and train control; and hazardous materials.  States serve as FRA’s safety partners.  State programs conduct routine compliance inspections; and may undertake additional investigative and surveillance activities consistent with overall program needs and individual State authorities and capabilities.  FRA provides on-the-job training to State inspectors.  We invite additional State participation in this important program and view it as an opportunity to improve oversight in key States and regions.

Focus Areas

Safety overall has improved; however, accidents related to human error and track defects account for more than two-thirds of all train accidents, and for decades trespassing and grade crossing incidents have accounted for more than 90 percent of all rail-related fatalities.  We will allocate resources and work with partners, such as Operation Lifesaver, to make improvements in these challenging areas.  Over the last several years, FRA completed the following rulemakings, reports, guidance documents, and other actions, which are important milestones to guide our work in these areas:

Human Factors

• Final rule to advance nationwide implementation of PTC systems by defining statutory terms and the essential functionalities of PTC systems.  FRA also issued two other rules designed to reduce some of the costs of PTC implementation. PTC systems are a technology that promotes safety improvement through the reduction of certain human-factor-related incidents and will complement FRA’s other safety efforts, such as implementation of safety Risk Reduction Programs (RRP) and crash energy management as applied to rail equipment.  On August 22, 2014, FRA published a final rule regarding exceptions to the current regulatory requirements to install and implement PTC systems.  The final rule responds to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Association of American Railroads (AAR).  The final rule reduces the number of miles of track and the number of locomotives on which a PTC system must be installed and implemented.  Publication of the final rule facilitated settlement of AAR’s suit challenging the then-current PTC regulations.
• Final rule requiring a railroad to have a formal program for certifying train conductors.  This raised the bar of professionalism and ensures that only those persons who meet minimum Federal safety standards serve as conductors.
• Final rule that establishes minimum training standards for each class or craft of safety-related railroad employees.  The rule requires the qualification and documentation of the proficiency of such employees on their knowledge and ability to comply with Federal railroad safety laws and regulations and the employing railroad company’s rules and procedures implementing those laws and regulations.  FRA is presently reviewing a petition for reconsideration of this final rule.
• Final rule that enhances safety by mandating that certain railroads (each Class I railroad, intercity passenger railroad, and commuter railroad) have a Critical Incident Stress Plan that may help mitigate the long-term negative effects of critical incidents upon railroad employees and the impact of performing safety-sensitive duties in the days following such incidents when the associated stress may hinder their ability to perform such duties safely.
• Final rule on the hours of service of passenger train employees.  This rule draws on detailed research into the causes of train operator fatigue and analysis of thousands of operator work patterns.  FRA also published in the FederalRegister three detailed statements of agency policy and interpretation to clarify the hours of service laws as amended by RSIA.
• FRA-led industry-wide initiative to combat the dangers of electronic device distraction in the railroad workplace as well as an emergency order and then a final rule prohibiting distracted operation of trains.
• Proposed rule to extend FRA’s alcohol and drug regulations to MOW employees, contractors, and subcontractors.  Also, makes other substantive amendments that either respond to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations or update and clarify the alcohol and drug regulations based on a retrospective analysis.

Track Safety

• Final rule to improve rail inspections.  Requires the use of performance-based rail inspection methods that focus on maintaining low rail failure rates per mile of track and generally results in more frequent testing for internal rail flaws that are invisible to the naked eye; provides a four-hour period to verify that certain less serious suspected defects exist in a rail section once track owners learn that the rail contains an indication of those defects; requires that rail inspectors are properly qualified to operate rail flaw detection equipment and interpret test results; and establishes an annual maximum allowable rate of rail defects and rail failures between inspections for each designated inspection segment of track.  These changes are intended to reduce the risk of derailments caused by rail failures by improving the accuracy of rail inspections and shortening the time that latent, undetected rail flaws remain in track.
• Vehicle/track interaction safety standards.  The final rule was based on research into vehicle/track interaction, and it promotes the safe interaction of rail vehicles with the track over which they operate under a variety of conditions at speeds up to 220 mph.  The rule also adds flexibility for safely permitting high cant deficiency train operations[2] through curves at more conventional speeds so that both freight and passenger trains may better sustain maximum allowable speeds through curved track.
• New technology to improve track safety.  Through our R&D program we are developing new technology for avoiding track buckles (sun-kinks).  The device measures the neutral temperature of rail and warns the railroad when track maintenance is required to avoid track buckling.  We are also developing technology to predict rail temperature variations.  This provides railroads information needed to decide the extent and duration of slow orders to reduce safety risk on hot days.

Grade Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention

• Standards requiring railroads to establish and maintain toll-free “1-800” emergency notification systems by which the public can telephone the proper railroad about a stalled vehicle or other safety problem at a specifically-identified grade crossing. 
• Regulations requiring 10 States to issue State-specific action plans to improve safety at grade crossings. 
• Model State laws on highway users’ sight distance at passively signed crossings and on highway motorists’ violations of grade crossing warning devices. 
• A final rule specifying the types of information that railroads have to report to the Department’s National Crossing Inventory and periodically update. 
• A five-year strategy to improve grade crossing safety, including an audit every two years of Class I railroads’ grade crossing accident reports to ensure that these railroads are accurately reporting these incidents.  Resources permitting, FRA will conduct such audits every five years on other railroads. 
• Guidance addressing pedestrian safety at or near passenger rail stations.
• An FRA-released smartphone application with grade crossing information.

Advancing Proactive Approaches to Reduce Risk

Continuous safety improvement requires a multi-faceted approach.  The next level of safety will come from advancing proactive safety-based programs that analyze risks, identify hazards, and put in place customized plans to eliminate those risks. 

• Risk Reduction Programs (RRP) and System Safety Programs (SSP) that help identify accident precursors so that corrective action can be taken in advance.  As previously mentioned, a final rule to require passenger railroads to develop and implement SSPs is currently in review in the Department, and an NPRM that would require freight railroads to establish RRPs was published on February 27, 2015.  Both are designed to require railroads to develop and implement systematic risk-based approaches to ensuring continuous safety improvement.
• Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C³RS), a voluntary and non-punitive program for railroads and their employees to report close calls.  Results from one C³RS pilot site indicate nearly a 70-percent reduction in certain accidents.  C³RS helps develop a positive and proactive safety culture, using detailed data far beyond what is obtained during accident investigations.  The magnitude of the information provided from proactive programs like C³RS in comparison to traditional data from accidents and injuries is illustrated below:

Programs like C³RS allow us to gather data beforean accident occurs and to develop risk mitigation strategies well in advance.

Capital Investments, Including Robust R&D

Safety is improved not just through regulations and inspections but also through capital investments and R&D.  Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and subsequent Fiscal Year 2010 appropriation, Congress dedicated more than $10 billion to improve the Nation’s rail system.  The investments made with these funds have reduced trip times, improved reliability, added frequencies, and modernized stations and passenger equipment.  In addition to these service improvements, this funding has also enhanced railroad safety through track and bridge improvements, grade crossing protection measures and separations, and PTC and signal system upgrades. 

Decades of underinvestment have led to a multi-billion dollar backlog of projects required to maintain a state of good repair on our Nation’s rail system, as well as a significant deficit in the capital funding required to meet this current need and rising future demand.  The Administration has put forward comprehensive, $478 billion multi-modal surface transportation reauthorization proposal–the GROW AMERICA Act--to meet the transportation challenges facing the United States.  The proposal includes $29 billion for rail over six years.  The fundamental goal of this proposal is to implement a coordinated approach to enhancing the Nation’s rail system–an integrated strategy that addresses safety and passenger and freight service improvements.

In addition to capital investments, FRA has consistently made gains in safety using advanced R&D.  FRA’s R&D efforts not only provide the scientific and engineering basis for FRA’s rulemaking and enforcement mechanisms, such as FRA’s 2011 substantive hours of service regulations for passenger train employees, FRA’s R&D efforts also advance the next generation of rail safety technology and practices.  FRA has a number of R&D initiatives underway and planned for FY 2016 that will lead to safety improvements across the railroad industry.

FRA’s Reauthorization Priorities

FRA’s two core authorizations–RSIA and the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) –expired in 2013.  FRA is proud of its accomplishments in implementing RSIA and PRIIA, particularly in light of the laws’ sweeping provisions and the FRA’s concurrent need to implement and administer the Recovery Act funding.  Today, FRA is a very different agency than when these laws were passed, managing an investment portfolio of more than $24 billion in grants and loans.  The rail industry has also changed dramatically since their passage in 2008.  Despite the progress made since 2008, significant work remains to improve the national rail network.  The Administration is encouraged that Congress, and this committee in particular, recognizes the need for action.  The GROW AMERICA Act and the President’s FY 2016 Budget (Budget) present an integrated strategy to enhance safety, maintain current rail services and infrastructure, and expand and improve the rail network to accommodate growing passenger and freight demand.  The Administration’s proposal for rail reflects the following priorities:

• Build and strengthen our record of safety.  Rail is already among the safest modes of transportation.  Nevertheless, continuous safety improvement is imperative.  FRA is leading several related initiatives, such as the system safety and risk reduction programs that influence safety outcomes proactively and preemptively; expanding the successful C³RS program; and supporting implementation of PTC system technology.  The budget makes investments in advancing FRA’s safety mission by supporting PTC system implementation on Amtrak and commuter rail routes.  In addition, would provide funding to assist with the implementation of PTC on commuter railroads and Amtrak routes, study blocked crossings on a systematic basis, and would grant FRA authority to give merit-based extensions of the PTC implementation deadline, to permit provisional operation of PTC systems, and to prescribe science-based hours of service regulations for covered service employees still governed by the inadequate statutory provisions.
   
• Grow our economy.  Rail plays a critical role in supporting the stability and growth of the U.S. economy.  Freight rail is a $70 billion industry that is relied upon by various sectors across the economy.  Collectively, freight and intercity passenger rail employs over 250,000 people across America.  Additionally, recent Federal investments in passenger rail are contributing to a revival of domestic rail equipment, manufacturing, and supply industries.    
   
• Close the infrastructure deficit while modernizing our rail infrastructure.  Past generations of Americans invested heavily to build the infrastructure we rely on today.  Passenger rail capital investments have failed to keep up with the needs of existing fleet and infrastructure requirements. The Northeast Corridor (NEC) alone requires nearly $1.5 billion per year over 15 years just to bring the corridor into a state of good repair and maintain it in that condition.  The average age of the NEC’s major bridges and tunnels is approximately 110 years old.  These assets have remained in service well beyond their expected useful life and today require extensive maintenance and are major sources of corridor delays.  Commuter rail and Amtrak intercity services move 750,000 people each day along the corridor on more than 2,000 daily trains.  An unexpected loss of the NEC for one day alone could cost the Nation nearly $100 million in transportation-related impacts and productivity losses.  Maintaining and modernizing these assets would reduce long-term costs and result in safer, more reliable, and more efficient rail transportation.  The Budget would make investments to reduce the backlog of rail maintenance needs, replace obsolete equipment, and modernize stations to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
   
• Meeting growing market demand.  With the United States expected to gain 70 million people by 2045, the national transportation system must prepare for substantial increases in the movement of people and goods.  Rail transportation will be critical to meeting this growing demand.  FRA’s Budget would make strategic investments that reflect the needs of multiple stakeholders–passenger and freight rail operators, the traveling public and shippers, governments and private interests.  The Budget would fund projects based on specific market needs and rigorous analysis of costs and benefits.  The Budget would make investments in both new and improved passenger rail services with varying frequencies and speeds, offering ladders of opportunity and necessary mobility to a variety of communities.
   
• Promoting innovation. FRA’s budget invests in R&D and workforce to enable America’s global leadership in rail safety, productivity, and technological innovation.  FRA’s vision is a domestic rail industry that leads the world again–we want U.S. companies to patent state-of-the-art rail technology, supply rail operators throughout the world, and employ the best engineers and railway workers.  The United States should export intellectual capital and rail products, not import them.  The budget makes investments in America’s workforce, manufacturing, and critical R&D activities.
   
• Ensuring transparency and accountability.  Accomplishing the priorities described above can occur only if these programs are managed through a process that makes expected public benefits and service improvements transparent to the American people. The roles and responsibilities of the Federal government, States, Amtrak, freight railroads, and other stakeholders must be clear and based on sound public policy.  One of the principles of GROW AMERICA and the FY 2016 Budget is to organize funding for current passenger rail services by business lines and invest Amtrak’s NEC operating surpluses back into the corridor to address NEC infrastructure needs.  This structure would improve transparency and accountability for taxpayer investments by aligning costs, revenues, and Federal grants to business lines to better ensure that our investments are advancing the nation’s goals and objectives for rail services.  GROW AMERICA and the FY 2016 Budget also request $350 million per year to bring Amtrak-served rail stations into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Accessibility to our Nation’s rail system is a civil right, and DOT is committed to rectifying this issue.  The Budget would provide a transparent structure that would ensure delivery of public benefits and a high level of accountability for public resources.

The Need for Predictable Funding

An overarching issue that runs across all of these priorities is the need for sustained and predictable Federal funding for rail programs, similar to the treatment of other modes of transportation.  Congress has for decades funded highway infrastructure and safety, transit, and aviation programs through multi-year authorizations that provide guaranteed funding.  This enables States, local governments, and other stakeholders to plan and make large-scale infrastructure investments on a year-to-year basis.  Likewise, internationally, other major rail systems have been planned and developed through a predictable multi-year funding program.  GROW AMERICA would establish a Rail Account within the Transportation Trust Fund to provide this funding certainty for rail.

Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and answer your questions today.  Safety is FRA’s number one priority, and we appreciate your attention and focus on such an important issue for the American public.  Our vision for the next generation of rail safety balances a comprehensive and effective regulatory framework with innovative, proactive ideas and capital investment, including critical R&D.  We look forward to working with this Committee to improve our programs and make the American rail network as safe, reliable, and efficient as feasible.  I will be happy to respond to your questions.

# # #

Appendix 1

FRA Rulemakings Completed as of April 1, 2015, that were Mandated, Explicitly or Implicitly, by RSIA[3] as amended by MAP-21^[4]

1. To specify the essential functionalities of mandated PTC systems, define related statutory terms, and identify additional lines for implementation.  (Sec. 104).[5]  Final rule with request for comments published on Jan. 15, 2010; final rule amendments published on Sept. 27, 2010.
    
2. To establish substantive hours of service requirements for passenger train employees.  (Sec. 108(d)).  Final rule published on Aug. 12, 2011.
    
3. To update existing hours of service recordkeeping regulations.  (Sec.108(f)).  Final rule published on May 27, 2009.
    
4. To require State-specific action plans from certain States to improve safety at highway-rail grade crossings.  (Sec. 202).  Final rule published on June 28, 2010.
    
5. To implement the statutory requirement that railroads report certain information to DOT’s National Crossing Inventory.  (Sec. 204 as amended by MAP-21).  Final rule published on Jan. 6, 2015.
    
6. To require toll-free telephone emergency notification numbers for reporting problems at public and private highway-rail grade crossings.  (Sec. 205).  Final rule published on June 12, 2012; final rule amendments and response to petitions for reconsideration published on Mar. 15, 2013. 
    
7. Increase the ordinary maximum and aggravated maximum civil penalties per violation for rail safety violations to $25,000 and $100,000, respectively.  (Sec. 302).  Final rule published on Dec. 30, 2008; correcting amendment published on Apr. 6, 2009.
    
8. On prohibition of individuals from performing safety-sensitive functions in the railroad industry for a violation of hazardous materials transportation law.  (Sec. 305). Final rule on published May 19, 2009.
    
9. On procedures for emergency waivers.  (Sec. 308).  Final rule published on May 19, 2009. 
    
10.  To require training standards and plans for categories of railroad employees.  (Sec.401). Final rule published on Nov. 7, 2014.
     
11. To require the certification of conductors.  (Sec. 402).  Final rule published Nov. 9, 2011; final rule amendments and response to petition for reconsideration published on Feb. 8, 2012. 
     
12. On the results of FRA’s study of track inspection intervals and other track issues.  (Sec. 403(c)).  Final rule published on Jan. 24, 2014.
     
13. On concrete ties.  (Sec. 403(d)).  Final rule published Apr. 1, 2011; stay of final rule published June 15, 2011; final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration published on Sept. 9, 2011.
     
14. To require certain railroads to develop and submit for FRA approval their plans for providing appropriate support services to employees affected by a “critical incident” as defined by FRA.  (Sec. 410(a)).  Final rule published on Mar. 25, 2014.
     
15. To require owners of railroad bridges to implement programs for inspection, maintenance, and management of those structures. (Sec. 417).  Final rule published on Jul. 15, 2010.
     
16. On camp cars used as railroad employee sleeping quarters. (Sec. 420).  Final rule published on Oct. 31, 2011.
     
17. Amending regulations of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation to provide that the Secretary delegates to the Administrator of FRA the responsibility to carry out the Secretary’s responsibilities under RSIA.  (Necessitated by RSIA as a whole, but not a specific section of RSIA)  Published June 5, 2009.

Completed RSIA-Mandated Guidance and Model State Laws[6]

1. Guidance on pedestrian safety at or near rail passenger stations.  (Sec. 201).  Guidance provided in April 2012.
    
2. Guidance for the administration of the authority to buy items of nominal value and distribute them to the public as part of a crossing safety or railroad trespass prevention program.  (Sec. 208(c)).  Guidance provided on June 25, 2009.
    
3. Model State law on highway users’ sight distances at passively signed highway-rail grade crossings.  (Sec. 203).  Model State law provided on Jan. 7, 2011.
    
4. Model State law on motorists’ violations of grade crossing warning devices. (Sec. 208).  Model State law provided on Nov. 10, 2011.

Completed RSIA-Mandated Non-periodic Reports or Studies[7]

1. Report to Congress on DOT’s long-term (minimum 5-year) strategy for improving rail safety, including annual plans and schedules for achieving specified statutory goals, to be submitted with the President’s annual budget. (Sec. 102).  Submitted with the President’s budget for fiscal year 2011.
    
2. Report to Congress on the progress of railroads’ implementation of PTC.  (Sec. 104).  Submitted in August 2012.
    
3. Conduct study to evaluate whether it is in the public interest to withhold from discovery or admission, in certain judicial proceedings for damages, the reports and data compiled to implement, etc., a required risk reduction program.  (Sec. 109).  Submitted on Oct. 21, 2011.
    
4. Report to Congress on (a) “the effectiveness of any [hours of service] pilot project pursuant to a waiver” under 49 U.S.C. § 21108(a), (b) the status of all other waivers granted under that provision, and (c) recommendations for amendments to the hours of service laws. [8](Sec. 110).  Submitted on Oct. 20, 2014.
    
5. Evaluate and review current local, State, and Federal laws regarding trespassing on railroad property, vandalism affecting railroad safety, and violations of highway-rail grade crossing warning devices.  (Sec. 208(a)). Posted on FRA’s Web site in 2009.
    
6. Report to Congress on the results of DOT research about track inspection intervals, etc. (Sec. 403(a)-(b)). Submitted on May 2, 2011.
    
7. Conduct study of methods to improve or correct passenger station platform gaps (Sec. 404).  Submitted on Jan. 10, 2011. 
    
8. Report to Congress detailing the results of DOT research about use of personal electronic devices in the locomotive cab by safety-related railroad employees. (Sec. 405).  Submitted May 27, 2010.
    
9. Report to Congress on DOT research about the effects of repealing a provision exempting Consolidated Rail Corporation, etc., from certain labor-related laws (45 U.S.C. § 797j).  (Sec. 408).  Submitted on May 26, 2011.
    
10. Report to Congress on the results of DOT research about exposure of railroad employees and others to radiation.  (Sec. 411).  Submitted on Jan. 27, 2011.
     
11. Report to Congress on DOT study on the expected safety effects of reducing inspection frequency of diesel-electric locomotives in limited service by railroad museums.  (Sec. 415).  Submitted on Jul. 27, 2010.
     
12. Report to Congress on model plans and recommendations, to be developed through a task force to be established by DOT, to help railroads respond to passenger rail accidents. (Sec. 503).  Submitted on Apr. 20, 2011.

MAP-21 Program Consolidation

STATEMENT OF

THOMAS G. ECHIKSON
CHIEF COUNSEL
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC ASSETS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HEARING ON

MAP-21 Program Consolidation

DECEMBER 8, 2015

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Duckworth, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to discuss program consolidation under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21^st Century Act (MAP-21) and the implementation of key provisions designed to improve administrative flexibility and efficiency and accelerate project delivery.  Accompanying me today are Brian Bezio, FHWA Chief Financial Officer, and Peter Stephanos, Director of FHWA's Office of Transportation Performance Management.

Consolidation of Programs

MAP-21 consolidated a complex array of FHWA programs into a smaller number of broader programs, with the eligibilities generally continuing under such programs.  This revised program structure has helped provide our grantees with flexibility to deliver projects more efficiently.  It also anticipates the flexibility grantees will need to make data-driven investment decisions to meet performance targets.  However, while FHWA programs were consolidated for funding purposes, the same activities previously authorized remained eligible for funding under MAP-21.  As such, FHWA remains responsible for administering a $42 billion program with eligible projects of a comparable number and breadth as under the pre-MAP 21 program.  Because FHWA still must review and approve the eligibility of projects, including projects using funding still available under pre-MAP-21 authorities, neither the number nor the complexity of the projects we review has diminished.  In order to carry out our dual mission of protecting taxpayers and advancing national goals, FHWA must still provide effective oversight of State implementation of the Federal-aid highway program.  FHWA personnel remain focused on providing appropriate oversight, shortening project delivery, and advancing innovation. 

In the past decade, while funding for the Federal-aid highway program has grown, the number of full-time employees (FTEs) employed to support this growth has remained relatively constant.  In Fiscal Year (FY) 2003, 2,366 FTEs were dedicated to administer a $30.8 billion program.  In FY 2012, FHWA used 2,302 FTEs to administer a $40 billion program; in FY 2014, FHWA used 2,281 FTEs to administer a $42 billion program.  It is important to note that FHWA is organized around areas of expertise, including safety, infrastructure, operations, environment, and planning, rather than by program, meaning the FTEs are not specifically dedicated to specific programs.  Therefore, disaggregating an individual’s time based on a particular program is not possible.  Many discontinued or streamlined programs are still active as grantees spend down prior balances.   Similarly, projects that were eligible under these discontinued programs still remain eligible under the larger, consolidated programs.  While the structure under MAP-21 provides greater flexibility to the States using these funds, the program still requires the same amount of Federal oversight.  In short, FHWA still has many of the same responsibilities for programs under MAP-21 as existed prior to MAP-21. 

The areas around which FHWA has been and continues to be organized remain critical to delivering the consolidated program structure under MAP-21.  More than two-thirds of FHWA’s employees are located in our field offices, providing valuable expertise and working directly with State departments of transportation and other partners to deliver projects.  FHWA staff workload is a function of the number and complexity of projects that FHWA oversees, not the number of programs. 

Performance Management

The cornerstone of MAP-21’s Federal highway program transformation is the transition to a performance-based program, which sets the stage for States and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to make more strategic and efficient investment of Federal-aid highway funds through performance-based planning and programming.  The performance-based structure promotes the use of system information to make informed investment and policy decisions to achieve the national performance goals established in statute.  These performance measures are intended to assist States and MPOs in making data-driven funding and investment decisions.

The Department has been working diligently to finalize the performance management rules as quickly as possible.  The MAP-21 requirements cover a number of performance areas that vary in maturity levels.  In some cases, we have had to establish the new methods, standards, and data sources necessary to implement an effective national program.  In addition, all States and MPOs receiving Federal-aid highway funds will need to comply with these new requirements.  For these reasons, we have worked through many proposed implementation options, carefully considering the impact on these entities.  Additionally, the Department felt strongly about engaging the public early before the formal rulemaking process began.  Right after President Obama signed MAP-21 into law, the Department began a series of stakeholder engagements in which nearly 10,000 people participated.

FHWA is using a comprehensive approach to implement performance management, publishing rulemakings in three phases related to safety; infrastructure; and freight, traffic congestion, and air quality.  In timeframes coinciding with these phases, FHWA also is issuing three program-related rulemakings:  planning, highway safety improvement, and asset management.  FHWA has published notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for all but one of these rulemakings and anticipates publishing the final rules in the first half of next year.  FHWA expects to publish the final NPRM focused on measures for the performance of the National Highway System, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program, and freight movement on the Interstate System soon.  To provide transparency regarding these rulemakings, the Department updates the schedules on a monthly basis on its website:  http://www.transportation.gov/regulations/report-on-significant-rulemakings.

At FHWA, we are looking forward to reaping the benefits that the performance-based policy framework in MAP-21 will create in terms of helping maximize investments.  By focusing on national goals and increasing accountability and transparency, these changes will improve decision-making in States and MPOs through more informed planning and programming.  Implementing the performance management requirements and assisting States and MPOs as they transition toward this framework remains a priority at FHWA. We believe performance management is a key tool in preparation for the Federal-aid highway program of the future.

Project Delivery and Innovation

MAP-21 included provisions designed to further increase innovation and improve efficiency in the delivery of transportation projects.  Immediately after passage of MAP-21, FHWA began working aggressively to implement these provisions by conducting outreach sessions with stakeholders, issuing guidance, and working collaboratively with other Federal agencies.  FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) jointly took swift action to implement MAP-21 provisions requiring regulatory changes in the area of project delivery, including the exclusion from requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act to prepare an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment for actions following declarations of emergency. FHWA and FTA also published quickly an NPRM for new categorical exclusions related to actions within the operational right-of-way and for projects with limited Federal financial assistance.

Many MAP-21 provisions complement the successes of FHWA's Every Day Counts (EDC) partnership with States, local governments, and the private sector.  EDC focuses on shortening project delivery and getting proven innovations quickly and broadly deployed to benefit road users.  Designed to complement other initiatives centered on innovative technologies, practices and investment, EDC plays an important role in helping transportation agencies fulfill their obligation to the American people to deliver the greatest value for the tax dollars spent.  Simply stated, EDC is a State-based model to identify and rapidly deploy proven, yet underutilized, innovations to move projects from concept to completion more efficiently, saving time and money, enhancing roadway safety, reducing congestion, and improving environmental sustainability.

Congress incorporated into MAP-21 process innovations advanced in EDC, such as Programmatic Agreements, and innovative contracting strategies such as Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC).  CM/GC and other innovative contracting methods allow a project owner to evaluate new ideas, receive constructability advice from the contractors, and consider approaches that have the potential to reduce time, cost, and overall risk in the construction of projects.

In addition to process innovations, technology innovations like Safety Edge_SM and High Friction Surface Treatments are improving safety.  Other innovations are helping to deliver transportation projects faster and cheaper.  Using Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC), transportation agencies have been able to replace bridges over a weekend (within 48 to 72 hours), reducing overall project construction time by months to years in some cases.  Most States now have a specification and/or contractual language for use of Warm Mix Asphalt, which is mixed and placed at lower temperatures—saving fuel used for production; extending the paving season; and reducing emissions, odors, and fumes.

Across the Nation, transportation stakeholders want to look beyond "business as usual" and become more innovative in the way they deliver projects.  Through the EDC model, FHWA works with stakeholders to identify a new collection of market-ready innovations to champion every two years.  After the process of selecting EDC innovations for deployment is completed, transportation leaders from across the country gather at regional summits.  These summits provide transportation professionals the opportunity to learn about and assess the innovations being promoted through EDC, exchange ideas with their agency and industry counterparts in neighboring States, and provide feedback to FHWA on the support and resources needed to adopt the innovations in their own States.  These summits also begin the process for States and locals to focus on the innovations that make the most sense for their unique program needs, establish performance goals, and commit to finding opportunities to get those innovations into practice.

Forty-nine States have created State Transportation Innovation Councils (STICs), which are often responsible for the evaluation of innovations and oversight of deployment efforts.  Co-chaired by a State DOT leader and FHWA Division Administrator in each State, the STICs can encourage innovation and cooperation among a wide range of partners at the State and local levels and allow each State to customize EDC implementation to its own needs and challenges.  The STICs have become an essential component in helping create a national network to deploy innovation and get the most value out of every Federal, State, and local transportation dollar.

Through three cycles of EDC, a total of 32 proven innovations and enhanced business processes have been promoted, saving millions that can be used to deliver more projects for the same investment.  Since EDC’s inception in 2010, every State transportation agency has used eight or more of the innovations promoted under the initiative, and some have adopted over twenty.  Through EDC, we are saving money, saving time, and saving lives—exactly the results we believed were possible if we and our State partners made innovation a standard industry practice. 

Conclusion

As you know, last week, Congress passed a long-term transportation authorization bill, finally ending the cycle of continued short-term patches that create uncertainty for project sponsors and inhibit their ability to plan effectively.  FHWA will continue to help prepare States and locals to deliver the highway program of the future while providing appropriate oversight and effective implementation.

Thank you again for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss MAP-21 program consolidation and implementation.  I will gladly answer any questions at this time.

###